Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

I am trying to pare down what I am writing, but I end up getting deep into explanation. I guess you bring out the best in me!

You wrote: “What you are still missing is the enormous word, “Love”.”
A. No, I mean the virtue, which is love. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” (Romans 5:5).

Loading…

www.catholicculture.org

Virtues are manifestations of motives, they are habits, which are manifestations of “goodness”. However, “goodness” itself has a criteria, Vico. By “goodness” we mean that which is Love, expresses Love, receives Love, knows Love. So when you say “they knew all the moral truth they needed to know” or “the only moral truth they needed to know was whether it is right or wrong”, you are missing the fact that morality is grounded in Love, and has the purpose of promoting Love. You are missing that morality is the means by which we may show Love to one another and co-create a Loving environment in which to live with fellow man.

Having “dominion of reason”, then, especially concerning issues of morality, involves much, much more than simply knowing the rules. Having “dominion of reason” involves having the insight to know that the rule “do not eat this” is based on Love, that the consequence for breaking the rule goes far beyond the immediate consequence, which in this case was said “you will die”. Indeed, since all the couple knew from God was Love, it was such an anomaly that there was something dangerous in the garden that it was practically incomprehensible that such an item could be anything other than good. After all, in an ideal situation Loving parents do not expose their children to dangerous objects, and Loving parents do not withhold information from their children that would help them make wiser choices.

Once Adam and Eve ate the fruit and learned of all the “actual” consequences, then they were able to apply additional reason to not eat the fruit. They saw that not only would the eating hurt them, that God was not kidding, but it would also hurt their children and grandchildren, among other unLoving consequences. They now had something much closer to “dominion of reason”, and would not have repeated their error. This is why the assertion that the couple had “dominion of reason over appetite” beforehand makes no sense in terms of what it means to be a normal, loving human being.

Morality begins with love, has the purpose of love, and is developed in the human through empathy.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart…
398… man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…

These words are not meant to provide an example of what it means to be charitable. Indeed, the assertions themselves, though uncharitable, are not meant to lead the faithful to assume the worst in people’s actions.

It is not Loving to be uncharitable.

 

[OneSheep]

A. Irrelevant since both the Baltimore Catechism and the current Catechism are authorized teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Baltimore catechism’s designation of Adam and Eve’s sin as “mortal” runs contrary to Jesus’ call not to judge one another. This calls to question the “inspiration” of the “mortal” assertion. It is not Loving to judge or condemn.

In fact, because the use of “mortal” is in the (older, outdated) Baltimore catechism but not the CCC, we can see the Spirit moving, continuing to guide the Church! We can look at the designation as uncharitable and judgmental, contrary to the Gospel. I want to thank you, Vico, for calling my attention to this amazing discovery!

Do you see what I mean, Vico? “Dominion of reason” involves knowing Love.

You wrote: “Your assertion saying that people’s will does not change with learning is unsupported in your statement.”
A. I said that those that will to do evil are not moved.

Another repeated assertion that does not address what i stated. I said that what people learn can and does change the will itself. Learning leads to a greater “dominion of reason” which in enhances one’s ability to know what one truly wills in terms of action. If you want to defend a different position on this, you could start by explaining how a person’s will changes or does not change through learning.

A. The scripture you refer to does not specify that they who Jesus asked his Father to forgive were culpable. It does show the spirit of generosity to not punish the invincibly ignorant.

If they were not imputable, the call to forgive was for no reason whatsoever. No, Vico, Jesus forgave the people who were crucifying Him. All of them, for all of them did not know what they were doing.

Let’s this bring this back again to Love. When people are in “carry out justice” mode, their empathy is blocked, quite naturally. When our mind is set out to punish someone, the empathy simply goes away, it shuts off. In that moment, those who were crucifying Jesus were not connected to Love. Sure, the “rulebook”, the “rules of morality” of the day said that it was fine to punish a blasphemer with death, but as you can see (hopefully) revelation in part involves bringing people to more understand Love!

We now, as a Church and as a species, see that sentencing a person to death is immoral, and we know that through divine revelation, through Love.

 

[Gorgias]

actually there are two references to angels in Genesis 3: the devil and “they have become like us…”

The devil doesn’t appear in Genesis 3. A talking snake does.

(And, the ‘us’ could be an instance of the usage of the “royal we”, couldn’t it?)

When we get in a state of sanctifying grace, we do it all the time.

Yeah, but in our case, we have not only concupiscence but also “darkened intellects and weakened wills”. Our first human parents did not. (That’s why, I think, this question gets misunderstood in the ways it’s being misunderstood around this thread – because people are thinking that we are exactly in the same condition that our first human parents were. We’re not. And therefore, the explanation of why we sin is necessarily different than the explanation of why they committed the first sin. )

 

[hergratefulchild]

The devil doesn’t appear in Genesis 3. A talking snake does.

who does the serpent represent?

the “royal we”, couldn’t it?)

The Trinity? so your mind is telling you angels did not exist in Eden? or not at all?

 

[Gorgias]

who does the serpent represent?

“Represent” doesn’t mean “appear.” If I’m the mayor of my city, and the President of the U.S. isn’t able to attend my event, and asks me to represent him, then the President of the U.S. isn’t present. I am. Even if I just “represent” him in a certain sense and according to a particular interpretation.

The Trinity? so your mind is telling you angels did not exist in Eden? or not at all?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that you cannot, in all truth, assert absolutely that the word “us” in Genesis 3 means “God and the angels.” That’s all.

 

[hergratefulchild]

isn’t present . I am. Even if I just “represent” him in a certain sense and according to a particular interpretation

I draw my conclusion from known facts:

He is the father of lies
The tempter
A fallen angel
Wanting mankind to submit to him

By his actions and words do I know him

 

[Vico]

…

…

• You wrote: “In fact, because the use of “mortal” is in the (older, outdated) Baltimore catechism but not the CCC,…”
  A. The term preferred in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is justice, from the Council of Trent.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed:…

Denzinger Council of Trent, Session v (June 17, 1546) Decree On Original Sin *

789 2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12; see n. 175].

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” 122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” 123 knowing and determining good and evil. …
122 Ps 51:4
123 Gen 3:5.

• You wrote: “Another repeated assertion that does not address what i stated. I said that what people learn can and does change the will itself.”
  A. OK. I am glad you see that we are not talking about the same thing now.
• You wrote: “If they were not imputable, the call to forgive was for no reason whatsoever. No, Vico, Jesus forgave the people who were crucifying Him. All of them, for all of them did not know what they were doing.”
  A. Those that “do not know what they are doing” are invincibly ignorant or have partial knowledge. That means only material sin or venial sin. We see that those can also be forgiven. CCC 1472
• You wrote: “When our mind is set out to punish someone, …” and “It is not Loving to judge or condemn.”
  A. Jesus can give an example to follow which is not to be vengeful, yet God does punish not as a human punishes for revenge.
• You wrote: “…you are missing the fact that morality is grounded in Love, and has the purpose of promoting Love.”
  A. I included charity (love) and malice all through the discussion, so I am not missing it.
• You wrote: “This is why the assertion that the couple had “dominion of reason over appetite” beforehand makes no sense in terms of what it means to be a normal, loving human being.”
  A. Remember my first post on this tread? You wrote: “Their reason was definitely compromised by something, correct? Their action was irrational.” I replied: “Same as with the angels. Their choice was not a temptation from the lower appetites is what it means. Catechism …”

 

[OneSheep]

I included charity (love) … all through the discussion, so I am not missing it.

Great!

So now that we are talking about Love, maybe we can stop talking past each other. Let’s talk about God’s omnibenevolence and man’s innocence, because to address either man or God in any other way is uncharitable.

Luke 6
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you.

Vico, it is not only charitable, but truthful to see that Adam and Eve did not have dominion of reason over some aspect of their created nature. Let’s look upon them with love, with enlightenment, instead of blame. In addition, God doesn’t create a creature (man) and test his limitations fully knowing that man would fail. God doesn’t want us to live that way, constantly blaming mankind itself for its own demise. Better yet, let’s look at the whole of Genesis 2 and 3 and realize that none of it is to be taken literally, and none of it depicts either God or man, even though all of it is inspired and tells an important lesson in a figurative way, in a symbolic way.

Indeed, He does not want us to condemn, blame, judge anyone. He wants us to forgive. He always forgives us.

If you forgive only those who repent, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. Be merciful, as Christ was merciful, forgiving all those who trespassed against Him.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: " Adam and Eve did not have dominion of reason over some aspect of their created nature."
A. The Catholic dogmatic teaching is that they did have dominion, not naturally, but through the preternatural and supernatural gifts, but through free will choose to sin, thereby loosing the state of original justice through a loss of supernatural grace. They could have avoided the loss by cooperating with the given grace.

You wrote: “In addition, God doesn’t create a creature (man) and test his limitations fully knowing that man would fail.”
A. We understand in Catholicism that God does exactly that: “test his limitations fully knowing that man would fail”. God allows each person to choose good or evil through free will and is possible to reject God’s grace.

Catechism

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: " Adam and Eve did not have dominion of reason over some aspect of their created nature."
A. The Catholic dogmatic teaching is that they did have dominion , not naturally, but through the preternatural and supernatural gifts, but through free will choose to sin, thereby loosing the state of original justice through a loss of supernatural grace. They could have avoided the loss by cooperating with the given grace.

Except that if they did have dominion, then they would not have made the choice they had made, it would have been un-human to do so. You think that a person could actually behave in such a way, and you have made the case that a completely irrational person could do so.

Irrational people do not have “dominion of reason”. People, when aware, are obedient to Love.

We understand in Catholicism that God does exactly that: “test his limitations fully knowing that man would fail”

Yes, this is the literal reading of Genesis 2 and 3, which gives us good reason to read it figuratively. No loving parent would test their own child this way. God is Love.

600…the acts that flowed from their blindness.

Yes, the crowd, like Adam and Eve, were lacking in awareness. This is why people sin, they are blind or lacking in awareness.

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

614 is not meant to contradict the fact that God always forgives us (Luke 23:34), or state that God holds debts against us (in contrast to Luke 6:34)

Instead, we can look at this:

Matt5: 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You see, Vico, holding debts against people and testing them is not “perfection” in the way that God is perfect. God is a merciful perfect, sending sun and rain on everyone He loves, regardless of their behavior, for His forgiveness knows no limit. If there was indeed a test, and if there was indeed a debt, these are incomprehensible in terms of God’s benevolence. If these are actually true, then they are a mystery, not to be held up as guides to knowing God or as guides to charitable human behavior.

 

[OneSheep]

Ya know, Vico, I can see that you are really trying to do something good, but there is a problem, and the problem is evident in the way that people are leaving the church.

The problem is that in our modern era, people are much more in touch with what it means to love, what it means to be charitable. To the degree that our theology presents a God who is unloving, unforgiving, or uncharitable, people will understandably reject the teaching, and reject the Church itself.

Instead, what needs to be presented is this in our apologetics, which I am paraphrasing from the Linns in their book Good Goats: Healing our Image of God: “If something in scripture sounds like God is less loving than the person who loves us most, then something is amiss.”

I know a great many young people. These young people more often than not know what love is, and they most often have parents who love and forgive their children unconditionally. (Forgiveness is an act of love, mercy). If we present to these people that God loves them less than their own parents, then faith in such a God simply makes no sense.

Now, if a child is raised by a parent that truly would test a child in the way that you are saying, then Genesis 2-3 might actually make sense to them.

So, which child do we want to draw, the child who knows God’s Loving perfection, or the child who does not know of such love? In my opinion, we want to draw both children, for the child that knows Love shines His love to the world, and the child whose experience of Love is limited can be shown the light.

And together, we as Church can create the Kingdom, we can make it real.

.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

isn’t present . I am. Even if I just “represent” him in a certain sense and according to a particular interpretation

I draw my conclusion from known facts:

He is the father of lies
The tempter
A fallen angel
Wanting mankind to submit to him

By his actions and words do I know him

Ok… that describes the devil pretty well. Problem is, the third and fourth assertions don’t show up in the narrative of Genesis 3.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Except that if they did have dominion, then they would not have made the choice they had made, it would have been un-human to do so. You think that a person could actually behave in such a way, and you have made the case that a completely irrational person could do so.”
A. They did have it, per the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and at the moment of sin, gave it up. That is what free will allows.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. …

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

The people should consider this, from the Catechism:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. 46

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Except that if they did have dominion, then they would not have made the choice they had made, it would have been un-human to do so. You think that a person could actually behave in such a way, and you have made the case that a completely irrational person could do so.”
A. They did have it, per the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and at the moment of sin, gave it up. That is what free will allows.

Waaait a minute… they gave up their “dominion of reason”, on purpose?

And please notice, Vico, that you did not respond to the point I made. It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc.

There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin, Vico.

 

[Gorgias]

There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin, Vico.

Not what the Church teaches, @OneSheep. People can make a deliberate choice to sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Not what the Church teaches, @OneSheep. People can make a deliberate choice to sin.

Of course people can make a deliberate choice to sin, but they do so when lacking awareness or are blinded by appetite or anger (resentment, etc).

There is no counterexample of this phenomenon.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin, Vico.”

A. No it is not natural for a human to have dominion of reason. The three explanations for sin are: malice, passion, ignorance. (See S.T. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2077.htm, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm)
St. Thomas wrote in the topic of malice:

Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good.

Catechism

1860 … Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Catholic Encylopedia

In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.

Ming, J. (1908). Concupiscence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

Council of Trent, Decree Concerning Original Sin

1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema

 

[Gorgias]

Of course people can make a deliberate choice to sin, but they do so when lacking awareness or are blinded by appetite or anger (resentment, etc).

There is no counterexample of this phenomenon.

Yes there is. It’s called “mortal sin.” One sins mortally when they have full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act and they choose it deliberately (i.e., not out of passions, etc).

You seem to be arguing that mortal sin is impossible to commit.

 

[OneSheep]

Sorry, Vico,

I would respond, but none of what you stated was a counterpoint to my observation.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “I would respond, but none of what you stated was a counterpoint to my observation.”

It was. You wrote: “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin, Vico.”

A. That is incorrect. There is other than ignorance or appetite, blinded blinded anger, etc. which is malice. Dominion had through supernatural grace, and not exercised.