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

[OneSheep]

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.

Well, it may be true that “mortal sin” is impossible to commit.

Try to come up with a scenario where a person actually has “full knowledge” of the sinful nature of an act but still chooses to sin. One could always come up with a gap in their thinking.

Here is a starting point: After the sin, does the person have regret? If so, there is something he now knows, or more likely some appetite is now satisfied, such that his own conscience is no longer compromised by emotion or want.

 

[OneSheep]

malice

What definition of “malice” are you using?

 

[Gorgias]

Well, it may be true that “mortal sin” is impossible to commit.

You realize that, if this is correct, it implies that universalism is true… and you realize that the Church has condemned universalism as heresy, right?

Try to come up with a scenario where a person actually has “full knowledge” of the sinful nature of an act but still chooses to sin. One could always come up with a gap in their thinking.

The “gap in their thinking” is reasonable. That’s what concupiscence is all about. However, the “gap” doesn’t mean mortal sin is impossible.

Here is a starting point: After the sin, does the person have regret? If so, there is something he now knows, or more likely some appetite is now satisfied, such that his own conscience is no longer compromised by emotion or want.

You keep using the word “conscience” to mean something that isn’t “conscience”! Conscience, if properly formed, will always give the same answer. What you’re talking about is the decision-making process and yes, we can make different decisions at different times!

And, of course, now that we don’t have “complete dominion of reason over appetite”, we do sin when appetites are disordered! However, when that happens, and we know that it’s sin but freely choose it anyway… sin. You’re having a real hard time admitting to that doctrinal teaching!

 

[OneSheep]

You realize that, if this is correct, it implies that universalism is true… and you realize that the Church has condemned universalism as heresy, right?

Please notice the words “may be”.

However, the “gap” doesn’t mean mortal sin is impossible.

True, to the degree that I don’t know everything, I cannot proclaim that “mortal sin” is impossible. However, what this thread about is “dominion of reason over appetite”, and my observation is that when people sin, they are either lacking awareness, blind, or both.

What I asked for was a counterexample to the above observation. If one resists making the counterexample in order to uphold the definition of “mortal sin” and uphold the brute assertion that people do make choices with “dominion of reason over appetite”, then so be it. The discussion ends with “people choose to make decisions with full knowledge because having ‘full knowledge’ is a criteria of mortal sin”. If you are satisfied with that answer, then I can accept your POV, but to me it does not jibe with human nature.

Conscience, if properly formed, will always give the same answer

True, but when there is concupiscence involved, want itself alters what a person sees as the content of the conscience. The internal discussion “makes” the wrong right, which is exactly what happened in Adam and Eve’s minds. Rationalization=compromising of the conscience.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

malice

What definition of “malice” are you using?

• Modern Catholic Dictionary

Malice - The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God. It is a contempt of the divine Author of the law, and an implicit denial of reverence toward God, who, as Creator, has a right to demand obedience of his creatures. It is the basic evil of sin.

• Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 78

On the contrary, A sin committed through certain malice is one that is done through choice of evil. Now we make choice of those things to which we are inclined by habit, as stated in Ethic. vi, 2 with regard to virtuous habits. Therefore a sin that arises from habit is committed through certain malice.

Catholic Encyclopedia

• The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves.
• Of the malice of sin man’s evil will is the sufficient cause.
• An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view.

Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
O’Neil, Arthur Charles. “Sin.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

 

[OneSheep]

Malice - The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God.
…choice of evil…

Why would a human with “dominion of reason” make a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God?

As you can see, “malice” is not an explanation for human behavior, it is only a description of human behavior. “Malice” is a choice, an action, not an explanation for an action as to why it is chosen.

So, if you actually want to make a counterpoint to the observation:

“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.”

then all you need to do is provide another reason as to why people choose to sin.

 

[Vico]

…

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 163 The first man’s sin

Reply to Objection 1. Man’s disobedience to the Divine command was not willed by man for his own sake, for this could not happen unless one presuppose inordinateness in his will. It remains therefore that he willed it for the sake of something else. Now the first thing he coveted inordinately was his own excellence; and consequently his disobedience was the result of his pride. This agrees with the statement of Augustine, who says (Ad Oros [Dial. QQ. lxv, qu. 4) that “man puffed up with pride obeyed the serpent’s prompting, and scorned God’s commands.”

 

[Happymom]

People make unreasonable choices all the time Adam and Eve was no different.

 

[Gorgias]

Please notice the words “may be”.

Please notice that it may not be, since that would imply that a heresy would be true.

If one resists making the counterexample

A ‘counterexample’ would be a conjectural anecdote at best. So, there’s no counterexample that one could make without you being able to respond “na-ah! that can’t happen!” So… why bother?

 

[OneSheep]

A ‘counterexample’ would be a conjectural anecdote at best. So, there’s no counterexample that one could make without you being able to respond “na-ah! that can’t happen!” So… why bother?

Ironically, in your anticipation of a “conversation cut-off”, you shut off the conversation/investigation from even beginning. Our minds don’t want to “go there” in the first place, trying to understand why people do the hurtful things they do. It seems like it may go nowhere, but it always goes somewhere. Gorgias, your namesake would not have run from a philosophical discussion, would he?

Everything that the human does is in the context, first, of being human, made in the image of God. So yes, it is possible that a person may do something against what seems human, such as jumping off a cliff. But why does the person jump off a cliff? He is escaping his despair or anguish. Why does a person murder? He wants justice, and sees the other as dispensable (he is blinded by anger). Why does a person have an affait? His desire (appetite) dominates his conscience, or his conscience is undeveloped, or he is ignorant of consequences.

So, what it it that “can’t happen”? What can’t happen is a person making a choice without there being a conscious or subconscious reason for the choice. Can you think of a counterexample?

 

[OneSheep]

People make unreasonable choices all the time Adam and Eve was no different.

Your comment makes perfect sense to me!

 

[OneSheep]

Reply to Objection 1. Man’s disobedience to the Divine command was not willed by man for his own sake, for this could not happen unless one presuppose inordinateness in his will. It remains therefore that he willed it for the sake of something else. Now the first thing he coveted inordinately was his own excellence; and consequently his disobedience was the result of his pride. This agrees with the statement of Augustine, who says (Ad Oros [Dial. QQ. lxv, qu. 4) that “man puffed up with pride obeyed the serpent’s prompting, and scorned God’s commands.”

I find the analysis that the couple “coveted inordinately” a stretch. In a literal reading of the story, I think that normal humans under the circumstances would not be thinking about how much they love themselves, they simply wanted the knowledge, especially since it was forbidden. Since it was the only thing forbidden in the garden, it aroused their natural human curiosity for sure!

However, let’s investigate the assumed “inordinate coveting”. There is nothing in the narrative to indicate such “inordinate coveting”, so in order to make the assumption, we have to speculate the reasoning going on in their minds that was indeed “inordinate”, correct?

Let’s look at some possibilities:

“My knowledge is superior to God’s”
“I am more important than God.”
“It doesn’t matter what God wants, what matters is what I want.”

Does one of these fit the “inordinate coveting” scenario? If so, please pick one, or suggest a different reasoning that was going on in the couple’s minds. After all, if we are claiming that they had “dominion of reason” of any sort, then there must have been some reasoning in their minds.

BTW: The objection itself contains an internal error. If a person does something out of pride, he is indeed doing it for “his own sake”, which is an expression of his will, at least in the common definition of “will”. I know that Aquinas’ definitions can be much more complex, though.

OTOH, it could be that Aquinas was saying that man did not will the disobedience itself, but what was to be gained from the disobedience was what he wanted. It’s hard to say without reading more of Aquinas.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, your namesake would not have run from a philosophical discussion, would he?

Of course not. But, like I said – no counter-example would help, since it would be (by its very nature) simply anecdotal.

So, what it it that “can’t happen”? What can’t happen is a person making a choice without there being a conscious or subconscious reason for the choice. Can you think of a counterexample?

No, since my contention isn’t “there’s no choice”, but rather “in the case of imputable sin, there’s a choice that’s been made, for which the person is responsible.”

 

[Vico]

…

You don’t really have to delve into Aquinas or study Molinism. Saint Thomas Aquinas quoted Saint Augustine with the simple understanding: “man puffed up with pride obeyed the serpent’s prompting, and scorned God’s commands.”

However to fill in about being inordinate we have this:

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 162 Pride, Article 5 Whether pride is a mortal sin?

I answer that, Pride is opposed to humility. Now humility properly regards the subjection of man to God, as stated above (II-II:161:1 ad 5). Hence pride properly regards lack of this subjection, in so far as a man raises himself above that which is appointed to him according to the Divine rule or measure, against the saying of the Apostle (2 Corinthians 10:13), “But we will not glory beyond our measure; but according to the measure of the rule which God hath measured to us.” Wherefore it is written (Sirach 10:14): “The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God” because, to wit, the root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule. Now it is evident that not to be subject to God is of its very nature a mortal sin, for this consists in turning away from God: and consequently pride is, of its genus, a mortal sin.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Very good response to the root of the whole thread. A question of why did God not protect us from pride cannot argue your response. Because to question God is the beginnings of pride

 

[OneSheep]

No, since my contention isn’t “there’s no choice”, but rather “in the case of imputable sin, there’s a choice that’s been made, for which the person is responsible.”

Hmmm. I don’t remember the name of the error of argument, but the fact of responsibility (which is a given) has nothing to do with why a person makes a choice. People make their own choices, all of them, and “ability to respond” has to do with a person’s ability to answer for himself.

 

[OneSheep]

the root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule.

What this does not address is that whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God, and/or may truly be in defiance of God, and/or may be making a choice of malice, that they are doing so because they are lacking in awareness or blinded by appetite, anger, resentment, etc.

Indeed, a person with “dominion of reason” would have the wisdom of experience not to repeat an error, and Adam and Eve would not have repeated the same error if they had this minimal amount of wisdom necessary.

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.

Therefore, you have not yet proven that I am “incorrect”, my response to your answer is that malice itself comes from a state of ignorance or blindness. “Pride”, if it involves any of the thinking I described in post 737 above, is demonstrably a lack of awareness or blindness.

When “dominion” of reason is not “excercised” it is because of blindness or ignorance.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Corinthians 10: 13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “…whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God…”
A. That would be scandal – it does not address culpability.

You wrote: “… a person with “dominion of reason” would have the wisdom of experience not to repeat an error, and Adam and Eve would not have repeated the same error if they had this minimal amount of wisdom necessary.” and “When “dominion” of reason is not “excercised” it is because of blindness or ignorance.”
A. What is addressed is not future behavior but actual sin. Adam and Even committed mortal sin which means grave, full knowledge, and full consent. Dominion is forfeit when the sinner does not cooperate with grace. When dominion of reason is used it means potential and an for an actual instance where dominion is exercised the grace is called efficacious grace and and when not it is is called merely sufficient grace.

You wrote: “Pride”, if it involves any of the thinking I described in post 737 above, is demonstrably a lack of awareness or blindness.
A. Sin arising from pride may be mortal or venial.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “…whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God…”
A. That would be scandal – it does not address culpability.

Well, it does not address culpability (blame) because this thread is not about blame, it is about whether or not people with “dominion of reason” choose to sin. If you want to talk about blaming someone, we can, but please notice again that my last post again applies:

What this does not address is that whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God, and/or may truly be in defiance of God, and/or may be making a choice of malice, that they are doing so because they are lacking in awareness or blinded by appetite, anger, resentment, etc.

And there is nothing “scandalous” about what I wrote above.

Adam and Even committed mortal sin which means grave, full knowledge, and full consent. Dominion is forfeit when the sinner does not cooperate with grace. When dominion of reason is used it means potential and an for an actual instance where dominion is exercised the grace is called efficacious grace and and when not it is is called merely sufficient grace.

To actually address what I am saying, you might explain how a person with “dominion of reason” might “refuse to cooperate”. People who refuse to cooperate are only doing so with the important ingredients of lack of awareness, blindness, or both. I am not just asserting this, I can prove this, as you know.

When Adam and Eve made their error, just as when any one of us makes an error, they were now graced with the wisdom of experience, they now had something closer to “dominion of reason”.
Vico, the argument that Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason over appetite” is still unsupported when one observes how people actually are. To say that they had such dominion defies the fact that people learn from their errors, and when they do, they become more reasonable. If a person can become more reasonable, then the pre-error state can only be less described as “dominion” than the post-error state. To counter the argument of this paragraph, you would have to make the case that people do not learn from their mistakes.

Of course, none of this applies if we simply drop the notion that we are to take the story literally. For example, if we say that there was not this “test” at all, but that the “fall” simply describes our state of growing from lack of awareness to awareness, and say that all the detail is metaphorical, then we can uphold the dignity of man and the benevolence of God. Indeed, the Gospel calls us to see the dignity of man and the benevolence of God.