Immaculate Conception, Stained DNA

[James924]

Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary was the biological Mother of Jesus. As I understand it, an embryo gets half its DNA from the Mother. Would this have meant that, if Mary bore the stain of original sin, Jesus’ DNA, his material body, would have carried the stain of Original sin? Is the Nature of God compatible with the stain of sin?

Is it possible for sin to stain the physical body or only the spirit? Perhaps this is where I am confused.

 

[Geremia]

Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary was the biological Mother of Jesus. As I understand it, an embryo gets half its DNA from the Mother. Would this have meant that, if Mary bore the stain of original sin, Jesus’ DNA, his material body, would have carried the stain of Original sin? Is the Nature of God compatible with the stain of sin?

Is it possible for sin to stain the physical body or only the spirit? Perhaps this is where I am confused.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses these issues in his Summa. Specifically, e.g., Article 3 answers whether Christ contracted defects of the body:

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects. For we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth. But Christ, together with human nature, derived His bodily defects and infirmities through His birth from His mother, whose flesh was subject to these defects. Therefore it seems that He contracted these defects.

…]

I answer that, In the verb “to contract” is understood the relation of effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin, since “by sin death entered into this world,” according to Romans 5:12. And hence they who incur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not these defects, as due to sin, since, as Augustine [Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord., expounding http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh003.htm#verse31”]John 3:31

, “He that cometh from above, is above all,” says: “Christ came from above, i.e. from the height of human nature, which it had before the fall of the first man.” For He received human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.

Reply to Objection 1. The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and therefore contracted these defects. But from the Virgin, Christ’s flesh assumed the nature without sin, and He might likewise have assumed the nature without its penalties. But He wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out the work of our redemption, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore He had these defects–not that He contracted them, but that He assumed them.I hope that helps. St. Thomas is very lucid.

 

[diggit03]

I have a question of my own, after reading this
Was Christ any less vulnerable (for lack of a better word) to temptation than we are? If so, is it because He had no original sin?

 

[Geremia]

I have a question of my own, after reading this
Was Christ any less vulnerable (for lack of a better word) to temptation than we are? If so, is it because He had no original sin?

No, Christ could have chosen never to be tempted. Again, from St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica, in the article “Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?”:

I answer that, Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might strengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily (xvi in Evang.): “It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death.”

Secondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may think himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore also He wished to be tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii.): “The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence also it is written (Sirach 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation.”

Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv) that Christ “allowed Himself to be tempted” by the devil, “that He might be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example.”

Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written (Hebrews 4:15): “We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.”

 

[puzzleannie]

Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary was the biological Mother of Jesus. As I understand it, an embryo gets half its DNA from the Mother. Would this have meant that, if Mary bore the stain of original sin, Jesus’ DNA, his material body, would have carried the stain of Original sin? Is the Nature of God compatible with the stain of sin?

Is it possible for sin to stain the physical body or only the spirit? Perhaps this is where I am confused.

original sin is not contained in the DNA, as in a defective gene or a genetic linked trait, but an inheritance from our first parents. For instance if you inherited property from your grandfather it does not come to you via your DNA, except insofar as that proves you are his descendent. How Mary’s DNA was acted upon by the Holy Spirit is a mystery left unexplained in scripture, so it is nothing we have to understand fully to be saved. The fact of the Incarnation and the fact of her Immaculate Conception within the womb of her mother (we are speaking of two different events here) is required belief.

I am not sure precisely which aspect of doctrine you are questioning?

 

[Geremia]

Is the Nature of God compatible with the stain of sin?

He took on the effects of sin solely to redeem us from sin, not because He was ever disobedient to God the Father.

Elaborating a little more on this question:

Is it possible for sin to stain the physical body or only the spirit?

This is exactly what happened to Our Blessed Mother. St. Thomas says, when addressing the question “Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb?”:

Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first conceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit.

Thus we see that grace builds on nature, even our fallen human nature.

Now, “spiritual sins are fittingly distinguished from carnal sins:”

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), sins take their species from their objects. Now every sin consists in the desire for some mutable good, for which man has an inordinate desire, and the possession of which gives him inordinate pleasure. Now, as explained above (Question 31, Article 3), pleasure is twofold. One belongs to the soul, and is consummated in the mere apprehension of a thing possessed in accordance with desire; this can also be called spiritual pleasure, e.g. when one takes pleasure in human praise or the like. The other pleasure is bodily or natural, and is realized in bodily touch, and this can also be called carnal pleasure.

Accordingly, those sins which consist in spiritual pleasure, are called spiritual sins; while those which consist in carnal pleasure, are called carnal sins, e.g. gluttony, which consists in the pleasures of the table; and lust, which consists in sexual pleasures. Hence the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 7:1): “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit.”

 

[Schn]

original sin is not contained in the DNA, as in a defective gene or a genetic linked trait, but an inheritance from our first parents. For instance if you inherited property from your grandfather it does not come to you via your DNA, except insofar as that proves you are his descendent. How Mary’s DNA was acted upon by the Holy Spirit is a mystery left unexplained in scripture, so it is nothing we have to understand fully to be saved. The fact of the Incarnation and the fact of her Immaculate Conception within the womb of her mother (we are speaking of two different events here) is required belief.

Are you proposing a new method of inheritance that occurs in humans other than DNA? That would be scientifically extremely significant.

 

[Geremia]

Are you proposing a new method of inheritance that occurs in humans other than DNA?

No, that is not what she means. Addressing “Whether original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul?”, St. Thomas makes a careful distinction:

I answer that, One thing can be in another in two ways. First, as in its cause, either principal, or instrumental; secondly, as in its subject. Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): “In whom all have sinned”: whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child. But original sin can nowise be in the flesh as its subject, but only in the soul.

The reason for this is that, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1), original sin is transmitted from the will of our first parent to this posterity by a certain movement of generation, in the same way as actual sin is transmitted from any man’s will to his other parts. Now in this transmission it is to be observed, that whatever accrues from the motion of the will consenting to sin, to any part of man that can in any way share in that guilt, either as its subject or as its instrument, has the character of sin. Thus from the will consenting to gluttony, concupiscence of food accrues to the concupiscible faculty, and partaking of food accrues to the hand and the mouth, which, in so far as they are moved by the will to sin, are the instruments of sin. But that further action is evoked in the nutritive power and the internal members, which have no natural aptitude for being moved by the will, does not bear the character of guilt.

Accordingly, since the soul can be the subject of guilt, while the flesh, of itself, cannot be the subject of guilt; whatever accrues to the soul from the corruption of the first sin, has the character of guilt, while whatever accrues to the flesh, has the character, not of guilt but of punishment: so that, therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, and not the flesh.

 

[diggit03]

No, Christ could have chosen never to be tempted. Again, from St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica, in the article “Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?”:

thanks!! this was exactly what i was looking for.

 

[Schn]

No, that is not what she means. Addressing “Whether original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul?”, St. Thomas makes a careful distinction:

Sorry, I can’t decipher Thomas. What I see there is that he proposes that the soul carries hereditary traits, which is a method of inheritance apart from DNA.

 

[Geremia]

Sorry, I can’t decipher Thomas. What I see there is that he proposes that the soul carries hereditary traits, which is a method of inheritance apart from DNA.

Specifically, how do you see and conclude this? Thanks

 

[Schn]

…original sin is transmitted from the will of our first parent to this posterity by a certain movement of generation, in the same way as actual sin is transmitted from any man’s will to his other parts.

Original sin is apparently transmitted from parents down the generations, so I assume there’s some mechanism for this inheritance.

 

[Geremia]

Original sin is apparently transmitted from parents down the generations, so I assume there’s some mechanism for this inheritance.

The Council of Trent said that original sin is passed on not by imitation but by propagation. St. Thomas characterizes it thus:

[O]riginal sin is transmitted from the will of our first parent to this posterity by a certain movement of generation, in the same way as actual sin is transmitted from any man’s will to his other parts.

Also, there is more to human generation than the physical or biological; there is also a creation of a new soul out of nothing by God, so

the soul is the subject of original sin, and not the flesh.

 

[Tomster]

Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary was the biological Mother of Jesus. As I understand it, an embryo gets half its DNA from the Mother. Would this have meant that, if Mary bore the stain of original sin, Jesus’ DNA, his material body, would have carried the stain of Original sin? Is the Nature of God compatible with the stain of sin?

Is it possible for sin to stain the physical body or only the spirit? Perhaps this is where I am confused.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=416245

post # 7

 

[puzzleannie]

Are you proposing a new method of inheritance that occurs in humans other than DNA? That would be scientifically extremely significant.

OP implied that original sin is linked to specific gene in our DNA sequence, which is simply untrue. when using scientific terms best to use them only in their specific scientific (narrow) meaning. Yes our DNA contains our inherited human genetic material, no original sin is not “stained DNA”

 

[Schn]

The Council of Trent said that original sin is passed on not by imitation but by propagation. St. Thomas characterizes it thus:Also, there is more to human generation than the physical or biological; there is also a creation of a new soul out of nothing by God, so

What’s the difference between imitation and propogation? What’s a ‘certain movement of generation’? Are you saying it’s passed by soul not flesh? Is there DNA to a soul? How exactly does this hereditary soul work?