Catholic teaching on "Goodness" of Man

[ahimsaman72]

Where can I find a document(s) that explain the Catholic teaching (if there is one) that all people are good by nature instead of the protestant view (espoused by Calvinism) that man is naturally depraved in his nature?

Thanks…

 

[puzzleannie]

ahimsaman72:

Where can I find a document(s) that explain the Catholic teaching (if there is one) that all people are good by nature instead of the protestant view (espoused by Calvinism) that man is naturally depraved in his nature?

Thanks…

I just answered this in the thread in which you originally posed the question. besides the catechism references, you could look at the Summa, but that is beyond most of us. However Peter Kreeft’s digests of the Summa are very readable, and begin with the topic of creation, specifically the creation of man. Catechism of the Summa Theologica a reprint by Roman Catholic Books has these arguements in Q&A format, begin with section XVIII, of the state of happiness in which man was created. then the General Outline of Man’s Return to God.

 

[adnauseum]

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Genesis 1:31

 

[mercygate]

adnauseum:

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Genesis 1:31

True. But it didn’t stay that way. The nuance between ahimsaman72’s tradition and the Catholic position is that for Southern Baptists, man is Totally depraved (the “T” in TULIP), while the Catholic position is that although we are depraved, because of that initial goodness derived from God himself, we can still respond to grace.

I love to hear R. C. Sproul – my favorite Protestant after ahimsaman72 :tiphat: – dance around this one. He’s a Calvinist (Total depravity) but holds a semi-Arminian view, distinguishing between Total depravity and utter depravity. He “gets it” that SOMETHING must remain that can respond to grace . . .

 

[ahimsaman72]

puzzleannie:

I just answered this in the thread in which you originally posed the question. besides the catechism references, you could look at the Summa, but that is beyond most of us. However Peter Kreeft’s digests of the Summa are very readable, and begin with the topic of creation, specifically the creation of man. Catechism of the Summa Theologica a reprint by Roman Catholic Books has these arguements in Q&A format, begin with section XVIII, of the state of happiness in which man was created. then the General Outline of Man’s Return to God.

Thanks PuzzleAnnie!! That’s what I was looking for.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

adnauseum:

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Genesis 1:31

Thanks for the verse, but I was looking more specifically for Catholic theology that is outside of Scripture that is relevant to the foundational Catholic thinking of man’s nature. You would have to admit that the nature of man is indeed a deep and wide subject to delve into and moves beyond simple verses.

Peace…

 

[Fidelis]

ahimsaman72:

Where can I find a document(s) that explain the Catholic teaching (if there is one) that all people are good by nature instead of the protestant view (espoused by Calvinism) that man is naturally depraved in his nature?

Thanks…

To know this you must know the Church’s teaching on original sin. This is found inThe Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 396 through 421. Puzzleannie also provided some good references on the previous thread. Have you looked at these? Here’s a online Catechism link if you don’t have one:
scborromeo.org/index2.htm

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

True. But it didn’t stay that way. The nuance between ahimsaman72’s tradition and the Catholic position is that for Southern Baptists, man is Totally depraved (the “T” in TULIP), while the Catholic position is that although we are depraved, because of that initial goodness derived from God himself, we can still respond to grace.

This is a good point. Before the fall, my understanding of the nature of the first man (Adam) was that he was without sin with conditional immortality (conditioned upon his state of grace). But after the fall of man, his nature was corrupted and man was unable to bring himself back to God on his own (be holy in His sight) and it was only through the death of Christ that he could be redeemed of his sinful nature. That’s always been apparent to me from the Scriptures since I was a child.

I love to hear R. C. Sproul – my favorite Protestant after ahimsaman72 :tiphat:

Haha - thanks . To be in the same league with him is good company indeed.

– dance around this one. He’s a Calvinist (Total depravity) but holds a semi-Arminian view, distinguishing between Total depravity and utter depravity. He “gets it” that SOMETHING must remain that can respond to grace . . .

I would probably agree with his version rather than Calvin’s “total” I suppose. I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as Calvin would have us believe. Some part of man would have to be able to respond to God’s calling. Therefore, not all of man can be totally wicked as you pointed out.

Peace…

 

[Chris_W]

I think the late Pope John Paul II’s work on the Theology of the Body addresses this as well. He makes the case that man’s desires, however inappropriately he responds to those desires, are in reality promptings that could, would, and should lead us toward God.

No doubt we are depraved to a certain extent, as can be seen by how often man’s reacts to those desires in inappropriate ways. But if you are considering the “nature” of man (i.e. the design of man) John Paul II makes a compelling case that the nature of man is good. The fall of man did not change the nature (design) of man, but rather, only changed man’s ability to react appropriately to his own nature (design). Mankind regained the ability to react appropriately to those natural desires through Baptism, the Sacraments, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Rather than focus on how to justify the position that man is **not ** depraved in his nature (by design), I would ask for a justification of the position that he is.

 

[Della]

For the OP, there certanly were consequences of the fall of man, but total depravity wasn’t one of them:

(a) Fundamental unreliability of unaided human powers.

(A) The intellect (discursive reason plus conscience), originally created to inform man of the highest realities (God’s existence, general nature, and specific will), has now become a “crazed mirror” that reflects these in a distorted, deceptive way, because it has become enslaved to the corrupted will.

(B) The will, originally created as the faculty of free submission to God’s will, has now become weak and corrupt. It is not merely incapable of ruling the passions and appetites but sensually enslaved to them. It can also be described as “selfish” – pridefully bent on its own way rather than on submission to God’s will.

(C) The appetites, originally created as spontaneously responsive to the direction of the will, have become unruly, excessive, and often directed to illegitimate ends.

(D) The senses, originally created to inform the soul about the conditions of the world through which the self is to negotiate its way in following the divine will, have become the channels through which the appetites enslave themselves and (in turn) the will, and serve instead to seduce the self towards attachment to created things, when its true vocation is rather to love and serve the Creator.

The psychological dimension of the condition of fallenness, then, is a human nature consisting of a hierarchy of functions perversely inverted from their original function. The technical term for this topsy-turvey condition if internal mutiny, of “rebellion of the soul within itself,” is termed concupiscence.

 

[ahimsaman72]

PuzzleAnnie,

I hope you don’t mind, but I copied your response on the other thread and brought it here for this discussion. Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Catechism of the Catholic Church
sections on Creation sections 279-315
God creates a good and ordered world, sec. 299
Providence and the scandal of evil, sec 309-310
Man, creation of, sec 355-368
the Fall sec 384 ff

Man is created in God’s own image and likeness, which is wholly good, therefore man is created wholly good
read of course the book of Genesis, and the CCC footnotes and biblical references in cited section

also do a library search on CA home page for creation

Peace…

 

[DoubleEdged]

YOU PEOPLE ARE Edited expletive LOST.

WHEN GOD SAID ‘IT WAS GOOD’ DURING THE CREATION.

HE MEANT THAT IT WAS ACCORDING TO PLAN.

LIKE: HEY, GOOD JOB SON!

OR

STARBUCKS HAS SOME “GOOD” COFFEE!

OR

HEY, YOU’RE A ‘GOOD’ MECHANIC.

SO ACCORDING TO WHOEVER MADE THAT RIDICULOUS REVELATION OF WHAT GOD MEANT BY GOOD WOULD MEAN:

THAT THE TREES, THE SEAS, THE STARS, THE ANIMALS, THE PLANETS…WHERE ALL GOOD RIGHT?

SINCE WHEN DID ANIMALS HAVE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND WICKEDNESS??? HOW BOUT THE STARS? OR THE SUN AND THE MOON? DO THEY GO TO HEAVEN OR HELL ALSO?

WHY NOT? DID GOD SEE THEM AND SAID IT WAS GOOD?

LOL…I SEE WHY THE ELITES OF AMERICA SEE YOU PEOPLE AS EXPENDABLE CREATURES…NONE OF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BRAINS, OR ANY SENSE.

FURTHER MORE PEOPLE: WE ARE ALL BORN INTO SIN BECAUSE OF ADAMS TRANGRESSION.

DAVID, HIS NAME MEANS BELOVED. THE MOST HIGH HIMSELF LOVED THIS MAN. EVEN HE SAID THAT “IN SIN HIS MOTHER CONCEIVED HIM”.

Psalm 51:5-Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

LOOK WHAT THE PROPHET ISSAIH SAID:

Isaiah 64:6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

OH WAIT A MINUTE.

WHAT ABOUT JESUS HIMSELF…HE SAID CALL NO MAN GOOD, NOT EVEN HIMSELF…BUT ONLY THE FATHER IN HEAVEN.

MATTHEW19:16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

IF MAN WAS GOOD THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A SAVIOUR AND MAN WOULD BE BORN RIGHT INTO HEAVEN.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN.

 

[Della]

Well, DoubleEdged, you don’t mince words, do you?

Really, thanks for the laugh from yet another Fundamentalist with no theological training and the KJV alone (which you people neither understand nor where it came from) telling us who belong to the Church Christ founded that we are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! and LOST, LOST, LOST!

You, poor misguided thing, are the one who knows nothing.

 

[Mickey]

DoubleEdged:

YOU PEOPLE ARE Edited expletive LOST.

LOL…I SEE WHY THE ELITES OF AMERICA SEE YOU PEOPLE AS EXPENDABLE CREATURES…NONE OF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BRAINS, OR ANY SENSE.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN.

I see you are new to this forum. Let me give you a bit of advice. If you continue to post messages that lack charity and are condescending, you will be suspended faster than you can say, “DoubleEdged”.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[ahimsaman72]

DoubleEdged:

YOU PEOPLE ARE Edited expletive LOST.

WHEN GOD SAID ‘IT WAS GOOD’ DURING THE CREATION.

HE MEANT THAT IT WAS ACCORDING TO PLAN.

LIKE: HEY, GOOD JOB SON!

OR

STARBUCKS HAS SOME “GOOD” COFFEE!

OR

HEY, YOU’RE A ‘GOOD’ MECHANIC.

SO ACCORDING TO WHOEVER MADE THAT RIDICULOUS REVELATION OF WHAT GOD MEANT BY GOOD WOULD MEAN:

THAT THE TREES, THE SEAS, THE STARS, THE ANIMALS, THE PLANETS…WHERE ALL GOOD RIGHT?

SINCE WHEN DID ANIMALS HAVE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND WICKEDNESS??? HOW BOUT THE STARS? OR THE SUN AND THE MOON? DO THEY GO TO HEAVEN OR HELL ALSO?

WHY NOT? DID GOD SEE THEM AND SAID IT WAS GOOD?

LOL…I SEE WHY THE ELITES OF AMERICA SEE YOU PEOPLE AS EXPENDABLE CREATURES…NONE OF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BRAINS, OR ANY SENSE.

FURTHER MORE PEOPLE: WE ARE ALL BORN INTO SIN BECAUSE OF ADAMS TRANGRESSION.

DAVID, HIS NAME MEANS BELOVED. THE MOST HIGH HIMSELF LOVED THIS MAN. EVEN HE SAID THAT “IN SIN HIS MOTHER CONCEIVED HIM”.

Psalm 51:5-Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

LOOK WHAT THE PROPHET ISSAIH SAID:

Isaiah 64:6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

OH WAIT A MINUTE.

WHAT ABOUT JESUS HIMSELF…HE SAID CALL NO MAN GOOD, NOT EVEN HIMSELF…BUT ONLY THE FATHER IN HEAVEN.

MATTHEW19:16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

IF MAN WAS GOOD THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A SAVIOUR AND MAN WOULD BE BORN RIGHT INTO HEAVEN.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN.

Frankly, your behavior here is unwarranted. We were merely discussing some theological truths in a friendly manner between a Baptist (me) and others who are either Catholic or some other derivation. Please refrain from this kind of hostility towards others.

 

[adnauseum]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for the verse, but I was looking more specifically for Catholic theology that is outside of Scripture that is relevant to the foundational Catholic thinking of man’s nature. You would have to admit that the nature of man is indeed a deep and wide subject to delve into and moves beyond simple verses.

Peace…

I can’t win, ahimsaman72.

You see, usually I respond to threads by posting advanced theology, quotations from classical literature, philosophy, Vatican documents, sometimes I reply with direct translations from the original latin. Usually my posts get ignored which is fine.

But this one time I decide to reply with a bible verse and I get a polite: “that’s cute but I was looking for substance.”

I give up.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

To know this you must know the Church’s teaching on original sin. This is found inThe Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 396 through 421. Puzzleannie also provided some good references on the previous thread. Have you looked at these? Here’s a online Catechism link if you don’t have one:
scborromeo.org/index2.htm

Okay, thanks Fidelis! I will read through this material you have sent me to. I haven’t looked at PuzzleAnnie’s information yet either. It will take some time to do so to get an accurate understanding. I have 33 years of protestant theology to wade through .

Thank you for the link to the Catechism. I should have looked there in the first place. I just didn’t know if there were specific documents that spoke of the nature of man (like, for example, Nostra Aetate (sp?)) that spoke on the theology of the body. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. I can see that this is not an easy task because it involves much more than one piece of theology. It seems to run through many parts of overall Christian thought.

Maybe when I read some of this I will have a better understanding of where Catholics are coming from .

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

adnauseum:

I can’t win, ahimsaman72.

You see, usually I respond to threads by posting advanced theology, quotations from classical literature, philosophy, Vatican documents, sometimes I reply with direct translations from the original latin. Usually my posts get ignored which is fine.

But this one time I decide to reply with a bible verse and I get a polite: “that’s cute but I was looking for substance.”

I give up.

I’m sorry adnauseum. I didn’t mean to offend you by my post. I look at and respond to people’s posts whether they are simple in nature or complex. As a matter of fact, I thought you might follow up with something more specific. I’ve seen you give some really good answers to people in the past and respect your (name removed by moderator)ut. Please don’t take it the wrong way

Peace…

 

[adnauseum]

ahimsaman72:

I’m sorry adnauseum. I didn’t mean to offend you by my post. I look at and respond to people’s posts whether they are simple in nature or complex. As a matter of fact, I thought you might follow up with something more specific. I’ve seen you give some really good answers to people in the past and respect your (name removed by moderator)ut. Please don’t take it the wrong way

Peace…

Oh goodness I’m not offended by your reply at all.

I’m just issuing a sigh, nothing serious, like “you know, a guy just can’t get a break.”

I’m a very happy dude. I should have used a smilie face or something but those things sort of give me the creeps.

And I’m thrilled you’re here asking questions!!!

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72:

PuzzleAnnie,

I hope you don’t mind, but I copied your response on the other thread and brought it here for this discussion. Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Peace…

Oh, by the way, I do have a NAB Catholic Bible at home with study notes and commentary, so I will look this up and see what it gives me. Some of it seems pretty liberal (compared to my conservative protestant commentaries) but should at least be helpful.