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

[OneSheep]

A. No, it is not the love of some temporal good over the order of reason, etc., but it is the act of the will (which begins with deliberation). Malice does not have blindness or lacking awareness as an essential ingredient, rather it is that which is evil that is done deliberately with full knowledge.

Your “no” still sounds like “yes”. First of all, malice indeed has blindness or lack of awareness as an essential ingredient, because you brought in this from the dictionary:

… malice has love of some temporal good over the order of reason, etc., followed with action (deliberation). “The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God.” - Modern Catholic Dictionary

The definition certainly does not rule out acts of blindness and lack of awareness, because any deliberation that ends with a decision to transgress the law of God demonstrates the very weakness of “order of reason” described. And what is the source of such weakness? You got it, lack of awareness and blindness. Notice that the definition does not have the additional “full knowledge” aspect that we see elsewhere.

For malice with regard to Adam and Eve, which we are addressing, there is not a lack of awareness.

You can’t have it both ways, Vico. You have already stated that Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge that they would have from experiencing making the wrong decision, that the “test” was essential. Even though God in the literal story did not act as any good parent would, giving their children the maximum amount of information needed to make the right choice, you said the test was more important.

So, at the very least, without the essential knowledge one receives by making the wrong choice, they were most definitely lacking in awareness.

You wrote: "Okay, if they actually had been graced with dominion of reason that grace did not include the knowledge they would actually know from experience.
A. Mankind is not perfected at conception, but in a state of journey.

Exactly, we are in agreement again! “Dominion of reason” much less describes a pre-experience state than a post-experience state!

You wrote: “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”.”
A. No it is potential and may not be realized.

If it is a “potential”, you are going to have to go back to proving how the potential could actually occur. In the scenario you brought up (years ago ) the individual was completely irrational, believing and thinking one way, but doing the opposite. It was a person with a completely subconscious operator.

As regards their malice sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed

We addressed malice above. We are in agreement, though you disagree that we are so.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, in the literal story, their thinking showed a lack of wisdom, not dominion of reason.

I may not have understood what you were getting at here but either way we probably have a difference of opinion as to what the creation story, with man’s act of disobedience, means to convey. For you it might mean man stepping out on his own, gaining valuable knowledge that he wouldn’t have otherwise, knowledge that allows him to grow into his potential.

My understanding of the story, however, is different, if subtly in some ways, because man does gain wisdom by eating the fruit, but it’s really the wisdom to know not to eat of it, the wisdom to know of God’s existence, goodness, and love, and consciously, willfully, accept our absolute need for Him. The wisdom to know why we need to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the wisdom to know that authentic obedience comes only by that love. Man must enter into and remain in communion with God in order to have life, and ‘life abundantly’.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “First of all, malice indeed has blindness or lack of awareness as an essential ingredient…”
A. No, the essence of malice is deliberate choice of evil. For Adam and Eve it was with full knowledge of the moral character and with deliberation.

You wrote: “You have already stated that Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge that they would have from experiencing making the wrong decision, that the “test” was essential.”
A. It is a dogma of faith that Adam and Eve had full knowledge. It is never assummed that they have the knowledge you mention, indeed the Catechism states that we are created in the state of journeying.

You wrote: ““Dominion of reason” much less describes a pre-experience state than a post-experience state!”
A. No, it refers to presence of sanctifying grace, which grace which makes man capable of remaining free from mortal sin.

You wrote: “If it is a “potential”, you are going to have to go back to proving how the potential could actually occur.”
A. The dogmas of faith (Council of Trent, SESSION VI, Jan. 13, 1547, Decree On Justification – Introduction and Canons 3, 4, 5) that provides your answer are presence of antecedent and consequent grace (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma):

• There is a supematural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide, Council of Trent.)
• There is a supernatllral influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide, Council of Trent.)

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

You wrote: “First of all, malice indeed has blindness or lack of awareness as an essential ingredient…”
A. No, the essence of malice is deliberate choice of evil. For Adam and Eve it was with full knowledge of the moral character and with deliberation.

I have already addressed this many times, and your counters have not proven your point, only assertions have been made on your part. It appears that the assertions are meant to uphold a condemnation or punishment rather than to actually investigate a cause.

The story is most charitably seen as allegorical, not literal.

You wrote: ““Dominion of reason” much less describes a pre-experience state than a post-experience state!”
A. No, it refers to presence of sanctifying grace, which grace which makes man capable of remaining free from mortal sin.

Your answer does not address my point.

You wrote: “If it is a “potential”, you are going to have to go back to proving how the potential could actually occur.”
A. The dogmas of faith (Council of Trent, SESSION VI, Jan. 13, 1547

Your answer does not address my point. It says nothing about how a real human could actually choose to sin if he has “dominion of reason”.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “You have already stated that Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge that they would have from experiencing making the wrong decision, that the “test” was essential.”
A. It is a dogma of faith that Adam and Eve had full knowledge. It is never assummed that they have the knowledge you mention, indeed the Catechism states that we are created in the state of journeying.

There you have it, a complete internal contradiction. They had “full knowledge”, but not the knowledge I mention, which is knowledge that would help them better know the moral consequences of their actions. What you stated is illogical, and it is a both an insult to human dignity and a false picture of God’s benevolence.

 

[OneSheep]

I may not have understood what you were getting at here but either way we probably have a difference of opinion as to what the creation story, with man’s act of disobedience, means to convey. For you it might mean man stepping out on his own, gaining valuable knowledge that he wouldn’t have otherwise, knowledge that allows him to grow into his potential.

Actually, there are a lot of different interpretations that make sense to me, but very little about the literal interpretation makes sense. If Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason”, but still sinned, then it is an insult to human dignity, and simply untrue. When people have “dominion of reason”, including a dominion over blindness, they simply don’t sin. If God tested man without giving man at least the knowledge of experiencing an error, then it runs into a severe compromise of His benevolence.

Note: I am not putting down the literal story in terms of its original intent. It is an amazing story, and is full of symbolism and meaning at many levels. The original intent, to me, was in part to uphold His omnipotence, avert blame for human suffering to humanity (with the intent of instilling humility), and underscore the importance of obedience.

My understanding of the story, however, is different, if subtly in some ways, because man does gain wisdom by eating the fruit, but it’s really the wisdom to know not to eat of it, the wisdom to know of God’s existence, goodness, and love, and consciously, willfully, accept our absolute need for Him. The wisdom to know why we need to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the wisdom to know that authentic obedience comes only by that love. Man must enter into and remain in communion with God in order to have life, and ‘life abundantly’.

Your reading, to me, upholds human dignity and God’s benevolence. It takes the entire “test” aspect out of the story and shows that man begins from a position of lack of knowing and moves to a position of knowing.

I am soon going to begin a new thread, one that investigates a more charitable and logical interpretation, like yours.

 

[fhansen]

There’s a kind of balancing act involved here in my opinion. Man is morally obligated to love and obey God, and yet at the same time God knew that they would fail and already had a plan in place to address that situation. Man’s purpose here on Earth is to come to recognize and embrace that moral obligation, to bind himself to God as the catechism teaches. That’s man’s perfection, the journey to which God put him on even if it takes a detour away from Him at first.

Because in this world we experience a state where man’s will reigns-where God’s will is not enforced, so that we can decide for ourselves if Adam made the right choice, of freeing himself from God’s authority. And daily we experience the evils in small ways and large that result from man’s self-righteousness, from the abuse of his freedom. That experience, that lesson, is one part of God’s plan

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “What you stated is illogical, and it is a both an insult to human dignity and a false picture of God’s benevolence.”
A. No, they had full knowledge necessary for mortal sin. The catechism teaches that knowledge necessary for mortal sin only requires the knowledge of the moral character of the act not of all consequences.

 

[OneSheep]

The catechism teaches that knowledge necessary for mortal sin only requires the knowledge of the moral character of the act not of all consequences.

Yes, but you have never countered my point, which was that “knowing moral character” is not a simple on/off switch. We know moral character by degrees, Vico. You have nothing to counter this, obviously, other than more of your own assertions.

And again you want to bring this back to mortal sin, the question of culpability. This thread is not about blaming.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: "It says nothing about how a real human could actually choose to sin if he has “dominion of reason”.
A. Actually all my answers addressed your points exactly. The Church teaches against Pelagianism which allows that man may by his human nature be saved. It is not human nature to have dominion. We require grace of God which is supernatural to be saved and that salvation is brings the dominion of reason, if using our will, we cooperate with it. As the Council of Trent declared:

Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

• The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (De fide.)

See St. Thomas Aquinas, De Virtutibus in Communi 1.4, ad 7:

“the entire rebellion of the irascible and concupiscible cannot be destroyed through virtue; since from their very nature the irascible and concupiscible oppose reason in regard to that which is good according to sense; granted this can happen through divine power, which is able to even change natures. Nevertheless, that rebellion is diminished through virtue, to the extent that the said powers become accustomed to be subject to reason; whence it is from something extrinsic that they have what pertains to virtue, namely, from the dominion of reason over them; of themselves, however, they retain something of their proper motions, which are sometimes contrary to reason.”

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Yes, but you have never countered my point, which was that “knowing moral character” is not a simple on/off switch. We know moral character by degrees, Vico.”
A. Catechism states that full knowledge is significant for sin for if this is not full knowledge then is it partial knowledge and therefore no loss of justice by it. Adam and Even lost original justice from full knowledge.

You wrote: “And again you want to bring this back to mortal sin, the question of culpability.”
A. No about culpability exclusively but yes about dominion of reason over appetite, for if the dominion that is given through supernatural grace is not cooperated with, as it occurred with Adam and Even, it breaks the friendship with God resulting the the loss of original justice. This occured through pride.

Catechism

387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

I continue to admire your persistence and wealth of resource. While the resources do not answer the questions philosophically, I can see that you are trying to gather all you can from doctrine, etc, to contest my points.

You wrote: "It says nothing about how a real human could actually choose to sin if he has “dominion of reason”.
A. Actually all my answers addressed your points exactly. The Church teaches against Pelagianism…

Pelagianism does not address what I asked, it says nothing about how a real human could actually choose sin if he has “dominion of reason”. In fact, you cannot come up with an example of how it can actually happen. You have tried once, and ended up describing someone completely irrational, someone whose “dominion” was coming from his appetite for sex. The actual “reasoning” that drove his choices was subconscious.

See St. Thomas Aquinas, De Virtutibus in Communi 1.4, ad 7:

I tried to find something in there that addressed my point, explaining how a human could choose to sin with “dominion of reason”. Could you point it out?

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Yes, but you have never countered my point, which was that “knowing moral character” is not a simple on/off switch. We know moral character by degrees, Vico.”
A. Catechism states that full knowledge is significant for sin for if this is not full knowledge then is it partial knowledge and therefore no loss of justice by it. Adam and Even lost original justice from full knowledge.

Let me try to summarize what you are saying.

Adam and Eve had “full knowledge”.
Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error.

Adam and Eve knew the “moral character” of their sin.
Adam and Eve did not know that their sin would result in harm done to billions of people.

God is benevolent, infinitely more than any human.
God gave Adam and Eve less information than a benevolent parent would, as benevolent parents explain to their children how their acts would impact their own children and grandchildren, which they were sure to have.

Of course, I completely disagree and find those pairings illogical, but did I summarize them correctly?

 

[OneSheep]

387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

If sin is defined as an “abuse of freedom”, please note that this passage does not explain how a choice to sin, to abuse freedom, actually occurs.

Luke 23:34 explains how choices to sin actually occur, which does indeed indicate the “mistake” that people make.

 

[Vico]

…

…

…

You wrote: “…it says nothing about how a real human could actually choose sin if he has “dominion of reason”. In fact, you cannot come up with an example of how it can actually happen. You have tried once, and ended up describing someone completely irrational, someone whose “dominion” was coming from his appetite for sex. The actual “reasoning” that drove his choices was subconscious.”
A. It seems that you do not acknowledge that dominion comes from grace not from natural human power. It is the power to rule which is because of grace, not a natural human power. That power is possessed by Adam and Eve before they sin. They had been constituted with a preternatural gift which countered concupisence and sanctifying grace which makes it possible to remain free from mortal sin. When they did not exercise that dominion they lost it. The means is deliberate choice: free will.

You wrote: “I tried to find something in there that addressed my point, explaining how a human could choose to sin with “dominion of reason”. Could you point it out?”
A. Referring to the appetites, under control of virtue, he states "of themselves, however, they retain something of their proper motions, which are sometimes contrary to reason.”

You wrote: did I summarize them correctly?
A. No.

• Adam and Eve had “full knowledge” of the “moral character” of the act which would cause their loss of original justice. It is a deliberate free will act.
• Adam and Eve had not experienced of the loss of original justice yet but knew that the act would result in death.
• Adam and Eve travel their journey and are tested.

Catechism 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. 176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it …

You wrote about CCC 387: “this passage does not explain how a choice to sin, to abuse freedom, actually occurs.”
A. I posted CCC 396 which state that man did so by exceeding the “insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.” As CCC 387 stated, their fall was not “merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc.”.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

A. I see that you do not understand that dominion comes from grace not from natural human power. It is the power to rule which is because of grace, not a natural human power. That power is posessed by Adam and Eve before they sin.

Frankly, it doesn’t really matter if we call it “dominion from grace” or “natural human power”. All power comes from God, and our nature itself is a gift. No matter what the case, grace or nature, it was Adam and Eve’s appetites that had dominion, not reason. What I see, however, is that this is a direct conflict with any deep-felt need to blame Adam and Eve, to pronounce that they committed a “mortal sin” (even though that language in not supported in the CCC).

BTW: You still did not address my point.

You wrote: “I tried to find something in there that addressed my point, explaining how a human could choose to sin with “dominion of reason”. Could you point it out?”
A. Referring to the appetites, under control of virtue, he states "of themselves, however, they retain something of their proper motions, which are sometimes contrary to reason.”

Your “answer” does not address my point. It does not explain how a human could choose to sin with “dominion of reason”, St. Thomas repeated that people behave contrary to reason. Obviously, if the virtues are in control, there will not be a loss of that control. Saying “the virtues are in control until they are not” is simply ridiculous. It’s like “I can drive with control until I drive on the sidewalk.”

When a person makes a choice against virtue, the virtues are not in control. When a person makes a choice against reason, reason is not in control. This is the most glaring contradiction in the assertion of “dominion of reason”.

“Adam and Eve had ‘dominion of reason’ until they did not.”

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: did I summarize them correctly?
A. No.

Okay, I did not summarize the comprehensive points you are making, and I still see that your intent is very good, that you are trying to stand up for what you see as an accurate account of what the Church says about God and man. Unfortunately, though, when your presentation is examined for what it says, these pairings still remain accurate, and can be found in your responses in this thread:

Adam and Eve had “full knowledge”.
Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error.

Adam and Eve knew the “moral character” of their sin.
Adam and Eve did not know that their sin would result in harm done to billions of people.

God is benevolent, infinitely more than any human.
God gave Adam and Eve less information than a benevolent parent would, as benevolent parents explain to their children how their acts would impact their own children and grandchildren, which they were sure to have.

If you would like to contest your own position, that is fine. We could look at the pairings one at a time. These were all things you said. Your assertions in your last post sound internally non-contradictory on a stand-alone basis, but after hundreds of posts here, the above contradictory pairings are what came forth.

Or, did you change your mind on one of them? If so, which one(s)?

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Obviously, if the virtues are in control, there will not be a loss of that control.”
A. They are in control because of free will in cooperation with sanctifying grace. Free will is key.

You wrote: “When a person makes a choice against virtue, the virtues are not in control.”
A. The control that the person has is from their soul, the seat of will and intelligence. The will chooses which can be either good (siding with virtue) or bad (siding not with virtue) choice. Virtue or vice itself is not in control because we actually have free will.

You wrote: “Adam and Eve had ‘dominion of reason’ until they did not.”
A. Because they have free will and with the support of sanctifying grace they had control, but one the free will choice to sin occurred, they lost the sanctifying grace and so lost dominion.

 

[Vico]

…

Your wrote: “Or, did you change your mind on one of them? If so, which one(s)?”
A. You did not directly quote me. By paraphrasing you loose something. It would take a long time for me to go through all my posts, but you are welcome to re-read them. The key problem is that the Church states certain things positively, but other things are not specified. What is revealed as truth is affirmed and other elements are not required. You are drawing certain conclusions that are not taught by the Church. Specifically this, because the Church does not comment on what all information was possessed, but does specify the minimum needed for the loss of original justice (which is the loss of sanctifying grace which the Catechism explains is lost only through mortal sin):

• God gave Adam and Eve less information than a benevolent parent would, as benevolent parents explain to their children how their acts would impact their own children and grandchildren, which they were sure to have.

 

[OneSheep]

Free will is key.

Free will is important but not “key”. Free will is limited by a person’s ability to reason, which in itself is limited by the amount of knowledge and experience that a person has. For example, the fruit appeared to be a delectable distraction from reason, but the couple did not know that eating it would harm billions of people, which they would have known if they had the experience of having made the poor choice.

The couple “freely” made an ignorant decision.