Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[wmw]

This is how St. Thomas in the Summa handles it in Question 85,The effects of sin, and, first, of the corruption of the good of nature; Article 1. Whether sin diminishes the good of nature? :

I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.
Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.

Thus, one part in the three of human nature is continued to be diminished by sin; the part he names “the inclination to virtue.”

 

[wmw]

From these statements from St. Thomas I would also take that the first part he named of human nature that is constituted in the soul (besides the exception of the third part being the spiritual Sanctifying Grace) is undiminished; therefore, the diminished “inclination to virtue” is do to our material, decaying anatomy as you put it being less that Adam’s pre-fall and Christs.

I also think of Mary the mother of God, but am more inclined to say she has a sinless, Baptized from conception, post-fall status all her own.

 

[simpleas]

I’ve no quams with that change.

Nature- yes that is an indistinct term, I’m not sure that undefined State of Original Sin get accross the idea that his humanity has been altered.

I think you’re presenting facts not in evidence. Why would further sin not have further effects on human nature’s woundedness? The initial fall may indeed have been the greatest, but I don’t see where you can say more sinfulness over the generations doesn’t cause increased woundedness. Our definition of Original Sin means sinful enough to not have Sactifying Grace, but it doesn’t say anything about further degrees below that threshold.

How or Why does a State of Santifying Grace bar a way for Adam to be defiant? I can agree that he had to have overcome his natural graces and it would be something “unnatural” for someone without a wounded nature, but not to the level of “can’t”.

It doesn’t, I believe that the state of santifying grace is by choice, possibly. Like I said Adam could decide what action he would take, but from where did his prideful side take over, enough for him act against God’s command, since there was no sin in the garden?

What do you mean by I can agree that he had to have overcome his natural graces?

Thanks.

 

[wmw]

Because his “tendency to virtue” would be greater than our damaged one it would take an extra effort to sin than we might expect from our experiences, but that he could do it with a concerted effort.

 

[grannymh]

Adam was originally created in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

I’ve no quams with that change.

Nature- yes that is an indistinct term, I’m not sure that undefined State of Original Sin get accross the idea that his humanity has been altered.

At this point, we need some Catholic definitions for terms like Original Sin. Eventually, we can gather definitions in one post to be used as an easy reference.

Here is the CCC Glossary definition for Original Sin, page 890. I put in bold the sufficient definition for Original Sin.
ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the “new Adam,” came to redeem us (396–412).

From granny’s post 77
The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se.

I think you’re presenting facts not in evidence. Why would further sin not have further effects on human nature’s woundedness? The initial fall may indeed have been the greatest, but I don’t see where you can say more sinfulness over the generations doesn’t cause increased woundedness. Our definition of Original Sin means sinful enough to not have Sactifying Grace, but it doesn’t say anything about further degrees below that threshold.

The simple, very basic definition of Original Sin in bold in the CCC Glossary quote above is the one normally used. In my post 77, I referred to human nature per se which is spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy.

You are correct in your questioning. I should have been more clear. Adam’s disobedience resulted in a dramatic change. Garden to no Garden. That change is already in place when descendants commit Mortal Sin. We do not transmit our Mortal Sin to our children. Adam and Eve transmitted their State of Original Sin to their children. As CCC 405 states: “And that is why original sin is called “sin” in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” a state and not an act.”

However, I did not deny the possibility of effects. There are consequences.
From CCC 405
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
The reason the Catholic Church insists on a wounded nature is found in *CCC *406 which is in small print. Please refer to CCC 20-21 for an explanation of small print.
From CCC 406.
The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable.

 

[grannymh]

Adam was originally created in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

At this point, we need some Catholic definitions for terms like Original Sin. Eventually, we can gather definitions in one post to be used as an easy reference.

Here is the CCC Glossary definition for Original Sin, page 890. I put in bold the sufficient definition for Original Sin.
ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the “new Adam,” came to redeem us (396–412).

From granny’s post 77
The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se.

The simple, very basic definition of Original Sin in bold in the CCC Glossary quote above is the one normally used. In my post 77, I referred to human nature per se which is spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy.

You are correct in your questioning. I should have been more clear in post 77. Adam’s disobedience resulted in a dramatic change. Garden to no Garden. That change is already in place when descendants commit Mortal Sin. We do not transmit our Mortal Sin to our children. Adam and Eve transmitted their State of Original Sin to their children. As CCC 405 states: “And that is why original sin is called “sin” in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” a state and not an act.”

However, I did not deny the possibility of effects. There are consequences.
From CCC 405
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
The reason the Catholic Church insists on a wounded nature is found in *CCC *406 which is in small print. Please refer to CCC 20-21 for an explanation of small print.
From CCC 406.
The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable.

 

[wmw]

Adam was originally created in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

Here is the CCC Glossary definition for Original Sin, page 890. I put in bold the sufficient definition for Original Sin.
ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the “new Adam,” came to redeem us (396–412).

From granny’s post 77
The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se.

That change is already in place when descendants commit Mortal Sin.

Subsequent sin may not effect every person, but they may effect the descendants of people that commit further sins. The Definition is not contradicted by the theory that people’s “tendency to virtue” may be further damaged by subsequent sin.

Yes, the full effect of Original Sin was in place for all before the first child of Adam & Eve.

We do not transmit our Mortal Sin to our children.

You’re not arguing against my representation of St Thomas’ theory, but only something you think I’m saying. I say that Children are not morally culpable of the parent’s sin; so, I have always been in agreement with this statement, but their “tendency to virtue” may be less than their parents due to sin. No one has ever been born in sin. Only our nature as humans have been hurt by sin. This is consistent from Adam to today.

Adam and Eve transmitted their State of Original Sin to their children. As CCC 405 states: “And that is why original sin is called “sin” in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” a state and not an act.”

Thus, I say again I agree full with this statement of the CCC that no one is guilty of any sins committed by generations past including the Original Sin, but the nature of their humanity is diminished.

However, I did not deny the possibility of effects. There are consequences.
From CCC 405
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
The reason the Catholic Church insists on a wounded nature is found in *CCC *406 which is in small print. Please refer to CCC 20-21 for an explanation of small print.

No differences between us here.

From CCC 406.
The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable.

Nor here. Yet, this next statement below is very questionable and questioned quite directly in St. Tomas’s great work the Summa Theologica:

The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se.

Thorough there are difficulties in is construction that may be a misunderstanding of what you’re saying. How can “his” be a pronoun of “subsequent humans”, but I can’t make any sense of it in any another way.

I would say, “The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not remove an original state of sanctifying grace.” That part of human nature was totally eliminated by the Original Sin. Through, of course, any sanctifying grace imparted by the sacraments would be again removed by Mortal Sin.

 

[grannymh]

Subsequent sin may not effect every person, but they may effect the descendants of people that commit further sins. The Definition is not contradicted by the theory that people’s “tendency to virtue” may be further damaged by subsequent sin.

Yes, the full effect of Original Sin was in place for all before the first child of Adam & Eve.

You’re not arguing against my representation of St Thomas’ theory, but only something you think I’m saying. I say that Children are not morally culpable of the parent’s sin; so, I have always been in agreement with this statement, but their “tendency to virtue” may be less than their parents due to sin. No one has ever been born in sin. Only our nature as humans have been hurt by sin. This is consistent from Adam to today.

Thus, I say again I agree full with this statement of the CCC that no one is guilty of any sins committed by generations past including the Original Sin, but the nature of their humanity is diminished.

No differences between us here.

Nor here. Yet, this next statement below is very questionable and questioned quite directly in St. Tomas’s great work the Summa Theologica:
Thorough there are difficulties in is construction that may be a misunderstanding of what you’re saying. How can “his” be a pronoun of “subsequent humans”, but I can’t make any sense of it in any another way.

I would say, “The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not remove an original state of sanctifying grace.” That part of human nature was totally eliminated by the Original Sin. Through, of course, any sanctifying grace imparted by the sacraments would be again removed by Mortal Sin.

Thank you for going deeper into the discussion.

A phrase new to me is “tendency to virtue.” I like it because it is one of the ways to a “greater good.” We used to ask – How can a sin be chosen as a “good”? This mistake happens when we put our own desires for wrongful pleasures above the love of God.

Regarding the question – How can “his” be a pronoun of “subsequent humans”? I was thinking about “his” in the possessive case, for example, his children. In a poetic, yet real, sense, all of us are Adam’s children. Another reason I like “tendency to virtue” is that it is a positive consequence of descending from Adam. Granted that this “tendency to virtue” can diminish for a number of reasons, all of us have the hope that our ultimate goal of living eternally with God is very possible.

 

[wmw]

I think these are the changes we have agreed to before our “inclination or tendency to virtue inheritance” discussion. I agree it is not required dogma only a possible theological view; an optional point of Catholic theology. So, it should be just allowed as undeclared rather than incorporated either for or against. Yet, I’ve done a lot of replacing with heavy use of “the state of Original Holiness and Justice” and incorporated a shortened version of the CCC’s definition of Original Sin. So, much is changed.

(P#) Adam was originally created in the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Mortal Sin changes the state of the sinner to something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Adam committed the first Mortal Sin.
(C#) If Adam committed the first Mortal Sin then Adam’s state of Original Holiness and Justice became something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Original Sin is the mortal sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God. As a consequence they lost the state of Original Holiness and Justice, and became subject to the law of death.
(C#) if Adam’s state of Original Holiness and Justice he is in a State of Original Sin.
(C#) Adam entered into a State of Original Sin.

(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans
(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.
(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in a State of Original Sin (C1, C2)

 

[grannymh]

I think these are the changes we have agreed to before our “inclination or tendency to virtue inheritance” discussion. I agree it is not required dogma only a possible theological view; an optional point of Catholic theology. So, it should be just allowed as undeclared rather than incorporated either for or against. Yet, I’ve done a lot of replacing with heavy use of “the state of Original Holiness and Justice” and incorporated a shortened version of the CCC’s definition of Original Sin. So, much is changed.

It seems to me that there are two ways of approaching Adam’s relationship with his Creator. There is a possible theological view, an optional point of Catholic theology. And there is an approach using basic Catholic teachings. For example. There have been hundreds of posts trying to determine Adam’s motive for sinning. Why and how was he influenced, if that is the correct word, into committing the one sin which would shatter his original relationship with God. The basic Catholic teaching is that Adam disobeyed God by following his own will over God’s will.

(P#) Adam was originally created in the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Mortal Sin changes the state of the sinner to something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Adam committed the first Mortal Sin.
(C#) If Adam committed the first Mortal Sin then Adam’s state of Original Holiness and Justice became something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.
(P#) Original Sin is the mortal sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God. As a consequence they lost the state of Original Holiness and Justice, and became subject to the law of death.
(C#) if Adam’s state of Original Holiness and Justice he is in a State of Original Sin.
(C#) Adam entered into a State of Original Sin.

(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

Starting with the first statement “Adam was originally created in the state of Original Holiness and Justice.” we need to test every statement for its truth.

The next statement “Mortal Sin changes the state of the sinner to something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.” could be considered as a theological view because of the words “to something less than the state of Original Holiness and Justice.” While something less is technically correct, it invites debate regarding the “degrees” of “less.” Is the something a little less than the complete state of Original Holiness and Justice so that the original state is still present though in a bad shape? Or is the something less close to being totally less so that a new state is seen as 90% there?

I know that these questions sound rather silly when compared with the Catholic teaching that Mortal Sin destroys the divine life in the soul of sinner. ( *CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; Sanctifying Grace, page 898) However, when we use the word state, we need to avoid wiggle room.

The short explanation is – A particular state is either totally present or not present. There is no comparison using the word less.

 

[grannymh]

The short explanation is – A particular state is either totally present or not present. There is no comparison using the word less.

While I have seen various discussions about the state of Mortal Sin, what worries me are the hints that the state of Mortal Sin is not really as serious as some Catholics say. Often, this comes from the idea that the reality of a first human man is not as serious as some Catholics say. Most likely, the Ten Commandments are not as serious as some Catholics say.

This is why it is important to have language or terminology in accord with Catholic teachings when it involves the ultimate goal of a real human person. Our ultimate goal comes from the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. This is why it is important to study and understand all the nitty-gritty details of a relationship between a human creature and the Creator.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-27; *CCC *356; CCC 1730-1732.

 

[wmw]

I’d rather try to find a phrase to replace “something less than Original Holiness and Justice” than just declare “Adam is in a State of Original Sin” first statement. I think the misconceptions about what is Original Sin are a big part of what we are trying to say. Also, how it is transmitted via Adam’s changed nature; the nature of Adam that included Sanctifying Grace and an inclination to virtue. I’m not sure how to make these statement into Logic Statements. When I do they are too simple or worse. So, I’d like to have someone else write the logic.

Baring a new construction, I’d say we must at least give the statement defining Original Sin before declaring Adam is in it. This one or some improved version:

(P#) Original Sin is the mortal sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God. As a consequence they lost the state of Original Holiness and Justice, and became subject to the law of death.

 

[simpleas]

So what I’m reading is Adam and Eve created as the first original holy people, having greater virtue, with no real tendecies to disobey their creator, find within them, something that they don’t have, in order to will their own desire and disobey God’s desire.

In order for something to become desirable, there needs to be a desire within.

Desiring their own wills over God’s came from somewhere. If the three conditions as we know them were the same for A&E to be held responsible for the fall of their nature, then there was already a good and bad side within them, the possibility to do what was good or what was bad. So this sounds like there was already a fallen nature within them, one they needed to over come by doing the good rather than the bad, but we say that it was they who brought sin into the world.
How one brings sin into the world without having a nature, desire or whatever to bring it about I will never know.

 

[wmw]

Yes, back to Adam’s motivations. The Bible doesn’t seem to share Adam’s, but Eve seemed to think the fruit would make them more like God. This is a good desire to improve one’s self, but how did this good desire get twisted into an evil?

Notice first the initial idea that it would be good to eat the forbidden fruit and that it would be good for them was from the serpent, a symbol of the devil. So, part of this introduction of evil has some element of the external influence of evil. So, I can’t rule that out and Catholic teaching doesn’t say the devil didn’t influence at least Eve, but neither does Catholic teaching insist upon it. So, this is another question that we let lie for anyone to pick up as they please. Also, there are I’m sure many theologians that think as you are that some sort of evil must have come externally from the devil.

As for internal motivations reason can overcome many of our natural tendencies, we can fast, going without food for instance and use that to exercise our rational powers over natural instinct. It can be done for good or for bad reasons according to our intentions. Eve’s could have been fooled either by the devil or is some sort of self deception that this method of eating the fruit was truly wise and good and used her power of reason to overcome her natural tendency to obey God.

I like to hold both views of internal or external motivation as possibilities and try not to insist on one way or the other, then the, “a little of both”, could as well be the best answer for we do seem to be quite complex or that it need the force of both motivations to bring at least Eve to sin. Adam has the added possibility of losing Eve though I think he was not truly fooled and thus it was Adam’s sin that was the mortal one.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, back to Adam’s motivations. The Bible doesn’t seem to share Adam’s, but Eve seemed to think the fruit would make them more like God. This is a good desire to improve one’s self, but how did this good desire get twisted into an evil?

Notice first the initial idea that it would be good to eat the forbidden fruit and that it would be good for them was from the serpent, a symbol of the devil. So, part of this introduction of evil has some element of the external influence of evil. So, I can’t rule that out and Catholic teaching doesn’t say the devil didn’t influence at least Eve, but neither does Catholic teaching insist upon it. So, this is another question that we let lie for anyone to pick up as they please. Also, there are I’m sure many theologians that think as you are that some sort of evil must have come externally from the devil.

As for internal motivations reason can overcome many of our natural tendencies, we can fast, going without food for instance and use that to exercise our rational powers over natural instinct. It can be done for good or for bad reasons according to our intentions. Eve’s could have been fooled either by the devil or is some sort of self deception that this method of eating the fruit was truly wise and good and used her power of reason to overcome her natural tendency to obey God.

I like to hold both views of internal or external motivation as possibilities and try not to insist on one way or the other, then the, “a little of both”, could as well be the best answer for we do seem to be quite complex or that it need the force of both motivations to bring at least Eve to sin. Adam has the added possibility of losing Eve though I think he was not truly fooled and thus it was Adam’s sin that was the mortal one.

“Alittle of both” sounds reasonable to me.

Yes it’s interesting that the writer of the fall doesn’t say what Adam said, only that he took some of the fruit when offered by Eve. We now don’t believe it was a literal fruit anyway, and we can not know what the actual sin was, although there is much speculation about “serpent seed”, which sounds even more crazy each time I read something about it!

I would have to say that both committed mortal sin. The blame is laid on Adam, Eve was only deceived, so she would be “off the hook”, but it takes two to tango, and if they were of one flesh, then they were “in it together” both as responsible for each other.
Many seem to regard the fault of Adam, the sin of Adam, as he was the head of the human race, and almost disregard Eve.
I can see that as Adam being created, and then Eve, such thinking will be that man (male) is the head of much, responsible for more, but I tend to see it as equal responsibilty, authority etc, or else why even create a female creature to share in God’s life, God could have just as easily kept the human race male.

 

[grannymh]

I’d rather try to find a phrase to replace “something less than Original Holiness and Justice” than just declare “Adam is in a State of Original Sin” first statement. I think the misconceptions about what is Original Sin are a big part of what we are trying to say. Also, how it is transmitted via Adam’s changed nature; the nature of Adam that included Sanctifying Grace and an inclination to virtue. I’m not sure how to make these statement into Logic Statements. When I do they are too simple or worse. So, I’d like to have someone else write the logic.

Baring a new construction, I’d say we must at least give the statement defining Original Sin before declaring Adam is in it. This one or some improved version:

(P#) Original Sin is the mortal sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God. As a consequence they lost the state of Original Holiness and Justice, and became subject to the law of death.

As I re-read this, I am wondering if it would be better to first define Adam. Take a look at all the threads/posts about Adam and Eve with their questions and speculations.

Yes, there are many questions and speculations about our happy first ancestors in that famous Garden. Yes, after Adam’s disgraceful deed, they could be happy in the midst of their sorrow, because the first hint of a Promised Redeemer was given directly to them by God.
(Information source: Genesis 3: 9, 15; CCC 55; *CCC *410-411 *CCC *705; John 3: 16)

The preferred way to seek answers to questions and speculations about that Garden’s first gardener is to study the Catholic position.

When it comes to Adam who freely committed the Original Sin, the following questions need clear Catholic answers. Those readers who are interested in Eve should check out CCC 369-373

Who is the creature Adam?
How did Adam maintain his relationship with his Creator?
What is Adam’s nature?
When did Adam live?
Where did Adam live?
Why is Adam important?

Please note that the answers should yield important knowledge about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity which can then be used in logic statements and in the deductive method of reasoning.

 

[wmw]

Yes, well it would seem reasonable that Eve’s sin must be mortal as well; otherwise, we might be interviewing her now.

The Teaching of the Catholic Church:

“To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.” (C.C.C. # 1874)

So, she “knowingly” chose to sin. So I was wrong in thinking she might have been deceived into sinning and I agree that they seemed to have choose this together, but such conspiring against God didn’t lead to a greater unity, but an immediate blame game between them that seems to have repercussions to present day.

I never dreamed I was saying anything that seemed to put Adam’s status above Eve’s, but it seems one wrong statement tends to lead a false path to all sorts of other wrongs.

To Grannmh - I’m all stuck in the mud about these questions. Pray, move the train a bit further down the track please.
In what context do you want to explore these questions? (pre-fall or post-fall):

Who is the creature Adam?
How did Adam maintain his relationship with his Creator?
What is Adam’s nature?
When did Adam live?
Where did Adam live?
Why is Adam important?

 

[fhansen]

“Alittle of both” sounds reasonable to me.

Yes it’s interesting that the writer of the fall doesn’t say what Adam said, only that he took some of the fruit when offered by Eve. We now don’t believe it was a literal fruit anyway, and we can not know what the actual sin was, although there is much speculation about “serpent seed”, which sounds even more crazy each time I read something about it!

I would have to say that both committed mortal sin. The blame is laid on Adam, Eve was only deceived, so she would be “off the hook”, but it takes two to tango, and if they were of one flesh, then they were “in it together” both as responsible for each other.
Many seem to regard the fault of Adam, the sin of Adam, as he was the head of the human race, and almost disregard Eve.
I can see that as Adam being created, and then Eve, such thinking will be that man (male) is the head of much, responsible for more, but I tend to see it as equal responsibilty, authority etc, or else why even create a female creature to share in God’s life, God could have just as easily kept the human race male.

The sin of A & E was *disobedience of God. * Eating of the fruit simply represented the act of disobedience.

 

[grannymh]

To Grannmh - I’m all stuck in the mud about these questions. Pray, move the train a bit further down the track please.
In what context do you want to explore these questions? (pre-fall or post-fall):

Who is the creature Adam?
How did Adam maintain his relationship with his Creator?
What is Adam’s nature?
When did Adam live?
Where did Adam live?
Why is Adam important?

Google was in a good mood. This is a wonderful link which explains what I am doing.
blog.journalistics.com/2010/five-ws-one-h/

I never had journalism 101 – just on the job training. That is why I mix up the five ws and one h.
I say who, how, what, when, where, and why. It is a great way to get information when one has no clue what one is looking for.

For the purposes of this thread, who, how, what, when, where, and why are ways to start digging for information. As this is being done, we start to see that some questions seem to merge together and some, like why, may seem impossible.

Here is a short example.

When did Adam live?

Before color TV. Not exactly, but it was a long time ago. Some people claim he lived at the very beginning of the world. Living at the very beginning of the world is probably why he is important. Wait a minute, if Adam is called a creature, then there must have been a Creator some place. There could very well be some interaction between the Creator and His creature – probably some kind of relationship. But there is a huge gap between a Creator and a creature, so how could Adam maintain a relationship with a Creator God? Perhaps Genesis 1: 26-27 can tell us or maybe Genesis 2: 15-17. Oops! It looks like Genesis had the world in place before Adam walked in looking for a job.

Sometimes a bit of creativity leads to some solid Catholic answers.

 

[simpleas]

The sin of A & E was *disobedience of God. * Eating of the fruit simply represented the act of disobedience.

I think I have read it as they let their trust in God die within them. Yes they broke a rule, so in some way it was a disobedience, but not completely. Something in their knowledge, reason and action’s say that they stopped trusting in God, because they are offered more from another creature, and told by this creature that God is in fact lying to them, holding them back from becoming like God.
So in a way it was a disobedience, not trusting God’s word about dying, but not in a nasty conspiring way, more in a failure to seek God and ask what this creature meant!

Yes the fruit symbolises the action of disobedience, but it was not the real act that caused the fall.