Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[Gorgias]

My misunderstanding wasn’t about why we have rules and moral teaching, but about the word latæ sententiæ. That it seems to mean automatic excommunication :

Right. So, let’s look at a few examples; hopefully, they’ll clear up the questions you have.

Let’s suppose that three Catholic women walk into an abortion clinic: one is 14, another is 17, and the third is in her twenties. The 14-year-old really wants the abortion; although she’s been raised Catholic and knows that the Church sees abortion as intrinsically evil, she’s nevertheless made the choice on her own to have the abortion.

The 17-year-old finds herself in a different situation. Her parents have told her, unequivocally, that if she doesn’t have this abortion, they’re kicking her out of the house and stopping every kind of support they would otherwise give her. The twenty-something young lady really isn’t cool with the idea of committing a serious sin, but she really doesn’t want to have a baby now; so, in thinking it through, she’s decided to go through with an abortion. Although the twenty-something knows it’s a sin, she doesn’t know that she can be excommunicated for it; she didn’t hear anything about it in CCD as a student, and she’s never heard it mentioned as such, since then.

Now, procuring a completed abortion is always a grave sin; the questions we want to ask here are: for each of these ladies, is it a venial or a mortal sin, and, does excommunication apply to any or all of these ladies?

For it to be a mortal sin, “full knowledge and deliberate consent” are required. In this example, all three ladies know that it’s a grave sin, so they seem to meet the “full knowledge” requirement. What about “deliberate consent”? The 14-year-old and twenty-something ladies seem to be deliberately consenting to their abortions. However, the 17-year-old really doesn’t deliberately consent to the abortion; for her, the fear (based on the parental pressure she’s received) is what has brought her to the clinic. So, it would seem that the sin is venial for the 17-year-old, and mortal for the other two young women.

What about the latae sententiae excommunication? Doesn’t it happen automatically? Doesn’t it apply to all three women?

Canon 1323 speaks to the considerations that are relevant in the application of an ecclesiastical penalty (such as excommunication). It tells us that those under 16 do not incur the penalty; neither does it apply to those who are unaware of the law; nor does it apply if one takes the relevant sinful action “out of grave fear.”

The 14-year-old, being younger than 16, does not incur excommunication.
The 17-year-old, acting out of the fear of her parents’ reaction if she doesn’t have the abortion, also does not incur the excommunication.
The twenty-something is unaware of the penalty; therefore, she too does not incur an excommunication.

So, in this case, each of the young women commit a sin. For one of them, the sin is venial; for the others, it’s mortal. The excommunication – which would apply ‘automatically’ if it is incurred – nevertheless is not incurred in any of these situations.

One last thought: let’s suppose that these young women find themselves in line for confession on the Saturday after their abortions; they’ve thought about it, and although they may (or may not) have wished to have their abortion, they each are now sorrowful for their action, and are repenting of it.

In this case, the priest in the confessional doesn’t have to ask any of the questions that we’ve considered in this example. All he has to hear is that the abortion was procured, that the woman is sorry for her sins and intends to avoid them in the future. And so, all he has to say is “if the penalty of excommunication has been incurred, I lift it. And I absolve you of your sins…”

Does that help?

 

[grannymh]

Scholars tell us that Genesis is best understood as an example of the ancient literary style know as mashal - “a riddle” or a “proverb” in which there are layers of double meaning.

Smart readers will use the common sense approach to the exciting first three chapters of Sacred Scripture. They start with Catholic doctrines.

And when we read Genesis 3 closely, we find the story turns on a number of tricky passages, and words filled with multiple meanings: life, death, wise, trees."

The above comes from
stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-creation-fall-and-promise

I am interested in those tricky passages. Would love to see them.

 

[cfauster]

What I put in bold is the most famous small error (nobody really cares) in Catholic Catechism history.

It’s not my place to defend the Catholic Catechism as free from error, but CCC 390 sure seems completely consistent with everything in Catholic doctrine, as far as I can tell.

 

[cfauster]

Smart readers will use the common sense approach to the exciting first three chapters of Sacred Scripture. They start with Catholic doctrines.
​

As far as I can tell, the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology does.​

 

[cfauster]

As far as I can tell,
stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-from-sabbath-to-flood
is solid Catholic doctrine as well as solid Catholic Bible study.
Section III.B: The Wedding in the Garden deals specifically with Genesis 2.

 

[grannymh]

It’s not my place to defend the Catholic Catechism as free from error, but CCC 390 sure seems completely consistent with everything in Catholic doctrine, as far as I can tell.

This is a good response. Thank you.

However, CCC 390 does not address everything in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who talk/write as if they have no clue what is doctrine and what is not doctrine in the first three essential chapters of Genesis. The small error is in the reading of CCC 390 and not in doctrine.

First question about many necessary questions.
Does the story in Genesis 3 **is written in “figurative language” **have substantial reasons for being written in figurative language? And why does Genesis chapter 3 need to be written in “figurative language” instead of literal language? Could it be that some people consider Adam to be figurative instead of real?

Perhaps the problem I perceive is connected to how many stories are in Genesis, chapter 3. Could there be one story in figurative language and another story in literal language? Please note that literal language could have a figurative detail because literal language was not available at the time of writing. Does the tail wag the dog?

Another interesting detail is that the first sentence of CCC 390 affirms only one specific deed. What about the event which is the base for Genesis 3: 3? Is there a difference between one specific event and knowing the whole story which is the literal foundation for chapter 3?

Nonetheless, when I read about Adam being figurative and not a real person who had the natural ability to scorn his Creator – Guess which CCC paragraph is cited as the absolute Catholic denial of Adam and consequently Original Sin? It should be obvious that no Adam undermines the full divinity of Jesus Christ.

Something is wrong with the way CCC 390 is being used…

 

[cfauster]

This is a good response. Thank you.

However, CCC 390 does not address everything in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who talk/write as if they have no clue what is doctrine and what is not doctrine in the first three essential chapters of Genesis. The small error is in the reading of CCC 390 and not in doctrine.

First question about many necessary questions.
Does the story in Genesis 3 **is written in “figurative language” **have substantial reasons for being written in figurative language? And why does Genesis chapter 3 need to be written in “figurative language” instead of literal language? Could it be that some people consider Adam to be figurative instead of real?

Perhaps the problem I perceive is connected to how many stories are in Genesis, chapter 3. Could there be one story in figurative language and another story in literal language? Please note that literal language could have a figurative detail because literal language was not available at the time of writing. Does the tail wag the dog?

Another interesting detail is that the first sentence of CCC 390 affirms only one specific deed. What about the event which is the base for Genesis 3: 3? Is there a difference between one specific event and knowing the whole story which is the literal foundation for chapter 3?

Nonetheless, when I read about Adam being figurative and not a real person who had the natural ability to scorn his Creator – Guess which CCC paragraph is cited as the absolute Catholic denial of Adam and consequently Original Sin? It should be obvious that no Adam undermines the full divinity of Jesus Christ.

Something is wrong with the way CCC 390 is being used…

Thank you.

As far as I can tell, the things I’ve read and sometimes quoted from Scott Hahn at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology adhere to the reality of Adam as a real person. I have never read nor heard (on Catholic radio) Dr. Hahn referring to Adam as figurative. I have read/heard a few other Catholics doing so, and thus I understand your vigilance. But I think Hahn and Chaput and their colleagues are faithful sheepdogs rather than “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (as you’ve sometimes called some others named in previous posts in this and other threads) from whose attacks you very clearly and consistently defend Catholic doctrine.

 

[simpleas]

Right. So, let’s look at a few examples; hopefully, they’ll clear up the questions you have.

Let’s suppose that three Catholic women walk into an abortion clinic: one is 14, another is 17, and the third is in her twenties. The 14-year-old really wants the abortion; although she’s been raised Catholic and knows that the Church sees abortion as intrinsically evil, she’s nevertheless made the choice on her own to have the abortion.

The 17-year-old finds herself in a different situation. Her parents have told her, unequivocally, that if she doesn’t have this abortion, they’re kicking her out of the house and stopping every kind of support they would otherwise give her. The twenty-something young lady really isn’t cool with the idea of committing a serious sin, but she really doesn’t want to have a baby now; so, in thinking it through, she’s decided to go through with an abortion. Although the twenty-something knows it’s a sin, she doesn’t know that she can be excommunicated for it; she didn’t hear anything about it in CCD as a student, and she’s never heard it mentioned as such, since then.

Now, procuring a completed abortion is always a grave sin; the questions we want to ask here are: for each of these ladies, is it a venial or a mortal sin, and, does excommunication apply to any or all of these ladies?

For it to be a mortal sin, “full knowledge and deliberate consent” are required. In this example, all three ladies know that it’s a grave sin, so they seem to meet the “full knowledge” requirement. What about “deliberate consent”? The 14-year-old and twenty-something ladies seem to be deliberately consenting to their abortions. However, the 17-year-old really doesn’t deliberately consent to the abortion; for her, the fear (based on the parental pressure she’s received) is what has brought her to the clinic. So, it would seem that the sin is venial for the 17-year-old, and mortal for the other two young women.

What about the latae sententiae excommunication? Doesn’t it happen automatically? Doesn’t it apply to all three women?

Canon 1323 speaks to the considerations that are relevant in the application of an ecclesiastical penalty (such as excommunication). It tells us that those under 16 do not incur the penalty; neither does it apply to those who are unaware of the law; nor does it apply if one takes the relevant sinful action “out of grave fear.”

The 14-year-old, being younger than 16, does not incur excommunication.
The 17-year-old, acting out of the fear of her parents’ reaction if she doesn’t have the abortion, also does not incur the excommunication.
The twenty-something is unaware of the penalty; therefore, she too does not incur an excommunication.

So, in this case, each of the young women commit a sin. For one of them, the sin is venial; for the others, it’s mortal. The excommunication – which would apply ‘automatically’ if it is incurred – nevertheless is not incurred in any of these situations.

One last thought: let’s suppose that these young women find themselves in line for confession on the Saturday after their abortions; they’ve thought about it, and although they may (or may not) have wished to have their abortion, they each are now sorrowful for their action, and are repenting of it.

In this case, the priest in the confessional doesn’t have to ask any of the questions that we’ve considered in this example. All he has to hear is that the abortion was procured, that the woman is sorry for her sins and intends to avoid them in the future. And so, all he has to say is “if the penalty of excommunication has been incurred, I lift it. And I absolve you of your sins…”

Does that help?

Yes, thankyou for taking time to write this, I get it.

I’m sure it’ll help others who don’t always understand what is written in the CCC

 

[grannymh]

***The letter U is for the Uniqueness
******found in the first three historical ***
***chapters ***of Sacred Scripture.

---

General Observation

The question of literal language or figurative language is a favorite topic. What is unique is that there are literal, that is, real events in the first three historical chapters at the beginning of Sacred Scripture. I consider these events unique because people can be hung up on language without ever truly studying what language is saying.

The key to understanding the following events is that first there has to be a deep belief in the existence of the Creator God.

1.The creation of our universe.

2.The creation of the animal kingdom.

3.The unique creation of humans which established the unique
relationship between Divinity and humanity.

4.The clarification of specific terms for a relationship between a
divine being and a non-divine being.

5.The appearance of Satan and his temptation.

6.Adam yielding to Satan and the results.

---

 

[cfauster]

***The letter U is for the Uniqueness
******found in the first three historical ***
***chapters ***of Sacred Scripture.

---

General Observation

The question of literal language or figurative language is a favorite topic. What is unique is that there are literal, that is, real events in the first three historical chapters at the beginning of Sacred Scripture. I consider these events unique because people can be hung up on language without ever truly studying what language is saying.

The key to understanding the following events is that first there has to be a deep belief in the existence of the Creator God.

1.The creation of our universe.

2.The creation of the animal kingdom.

…

Good list!

Re. #2, any particular reason to specify the animal kingdom? Probably because Adam was given the task of naming them, or maybe because the creation of birds and fish (Day 5) and terrestrial animals (Day 6 - same day as humans) are specified differently in Genesis 1 than the way plants are mentioned in early Genesis.

In any case, in a sense #1 obviously includes every living (as well as non-living) thing, so plants, fungi, even microbes of all kinds, *etc. * along with the animals (including humans) - all are part of God’s creation. That’s a pretty easy, non-controversial application of the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1&2.

 

[grannymh]

Good list!

Re. #2, any particular reason to specify the animal kingdom? Probably because Adam was given the task of naming them, or maybe because the creation of birds and fish (Day 5) and terrestrial animals (Day 6 - same day as humans) are specified differently in Genesis 1 than the way plants are mentioned in early Genesis.

In any case, in a sense #1 obviously includes every living (as well as non-living) thing, so plants, fungi, even microbes of all kinds, *etc. *along with the animals (including humans) - all are part of God’s creation. That’s a pretty easy, non-controversial application of the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1&2.

Please do not confuse me with the bottom up people who want to fix Christianity by rebuilding the decaying parts. I have to immediately go to the bottom of your reply.
“That’s a pretty easy, non-controversial application of the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1&2.”

Please note that I do not intend to post about the “non-controversial application of the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1&2.”

I am basing these events on the literal, real, language found in the first three clearly-stated chapters of Genesis. For example. What is the word "God "figurative for? I can think of lots of things that the word “God” is figurative for. But do “things” create? Is God capable of creating? Christianity says yes. The literal language in Genesis 1:1 are the words “God created.” God creating is a pretty big event(s).

 

[OneSheep]

For it to be a mortal sin, “full knowledge and deliberate consent” are required. In this example, all three ladies know that it’s a grave sin, so they seem to meet the “full knowledge” requirement.

Hello Gorgias,

Hmmm. “seem to meet” from the given information is a bit hasty, correct?

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.

What is missing from your assessment is what the women understand about the sinful character of the act. Do these women understand that the children are gifts from God, that their lives are of infinite value? If not, they do not know the sinful character of the act. If they are thinking “it’s just a fetus”, they do not know what they are doing.

Even if he or she had previously seen value, when a person sees an unborn child as an imposition, something unwanted, the person may become blind. Their conscience becomes compromised by fear, want, or despair. Is a blind person of “full knowledge and complete consent”? So you see, it behooves us to understand people, lest we may hang onto blaming.

Along the same lines, are we to hang onto blaming Adam and Eve? The person who can be open to letting go of blame can come to see that any normal human doing what they did would have been either blind or lacking awareness. What is clear in the story is that A&E were ashamed; they had regret. If they were normal people, and they truly understood and had in mind the consequences of their actions (not blind in the moment), they would not have done what they did.

 

[grannymh]

Hello Gorgias,

Hmmm. “seem to meet” from the given information is a bit hasty, correct?

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.

What is missing from your assessment is what the women understand about the sinful character of the act. Do these women understand that the children are gifts from God, that their lives are of infinite value? If not, they do not know the sinful character of the act. If they are thinking “it’s just a fetus”, they do not know what they are doing.

Even if he or she had previously seen value, when a person sees an unborn child as an imposition, something unwanted, the person may become blind. Their conscience becomes compromised by fear, want, or despair. Is a blind person of “full knowledge and complete consent”? So you see, it behooves us to understand people, lest we may hang onto blaming.

The above is a good example of why the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is so important in the Catholic Church. We bring ourselves as we are to God.

Along the same lines, are we to hang onto blaming Adam and Eve? The person who can be open to letting go of blame can come to see that any normal human doing what they did would have been either blind or lacking awareness. What is clear in the story is that A&E were ashamed; they had regret. If they were normal people, and they truly understood and had in mind the consequences of their actions (not blind in the moment), they would not have done what they did.

Letting go of blame is good for the heart. In addition, when blame is somehow connected to the real persons, Adam and Eve, it is safer to actually read about their lives in the first three exciting chapters at the beginning of Sacred Scripture

 

[Gorgias]

Hello Gorgias,

Hmmm. “seem to meet” from the given information is a bit hasty, correct?

The analysis of the example hinges on the ‘consent’ requirement, I’d assert. But, if you want to discuss the ‘full knowledge’ side of the definition…

What is missing from your assessment is what the women understand about the sinful character of the act. Do these women understand that the children are gifts from God, that their lives are of infinite value? If not, they do not know the sinful character of the act. If they are thinking “it’s just a fetus”, they do not know what they are doing.

Just for the sake of argument… I’d disagree. The requirement is merely “full knowledge” that the act is gravely sinful. If a person knows that abortion is a grave sin, that should meet that requirement, without any further consideration.

Even if he or she had previously seen value, when a person sees an unborn child as an imposition, something unwanted, the person may become blind.

The question in this case wouldn’t be the resulting figurative ‘blindness’, but whether the person is culpable of this ‘blindness’.

Along the same lines, are we to hang onto blaming Adam and Eve? The person who can be open to letting go of blame can come to see that any normal human doing what they did would have been either blind or lacking awareness. What is clear in the story is that A&E were ashamed; they had regret.

This means that they would be able to be forgiven… not that they weren’t culpable. :sad_yes:

If they were normal people, and they truly understood and had in mind the consequences of their actions (not blind in the moment), they would not have done what they did.

That’s the whole point: they weren’t “normal people” like you and I – they had preternatural gifts that we don’t. Therefore, they really did understand the nature and consequences of their actions in ways that we don’t… and therefore, they really do ‘earn’ the consequences of their act.

 

[grannymh]

The analysis of the example hinges on the ‘consent’ requirement, I’d assert. But, if you want to discuss the ‘full knowledge’ side of the definition…

Just for the sake of argument… I’d disagree. The requirement is merely “full knowledge” that the act is gravely sinful. If a person knows that abortion is a grave sin, that should meet that requirement, without any further consideration.

The question in this case wouldn’t be the resulting figurative ‘blindness’, but whether the person is culpable of this ‘blindness’.

This means that they would be able to be forgiven… not that they weren’t culpable. :sad_yes:

That’s the whole point: they weren’t “normal people” like you and I – they had preternatural gifts that we don’t. Therefore, they really did understand the nature and consequences of their actions in ways that we don’t… and therefore, they really do ‘earn’ the consequences of their act.

Thank you for a true Catholic approach.

Thank you for recognizing problems which would confound ordinary folk. In our world of free speech, misleading misinterpretations can damage a person’s faith and participation in the real Catholic Church. We need to watch for “danger”, when someone whispers that it is acceptable to tamper with Catholic teachings.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Gorgias,

Just for the sake of argument… I’d disagree. The requirement is merely “full knowledge” that the act is gravely sinful. If a person knows that abortion is a grave sin, that should meet that requirement, without any further consideration.

If this were the case, the person who thinks an unborn child is of no value knows the character of the sin the same as a person who sees infinite value, just as long as they both have heard it is a grave sin. Does God work this way, not considering the depth of knowledge of the sinner? Evidence from the Gospel says this is not the case, as Christ forgave people “for they know not what they do”.

The question in this case wouldn’t be the resulting figurative ‘blindness’, but whether the person is culpable of this ‘blindness’.

If by culpable you mean “worthy of blame”, then the answer is that an understanding can reveal that people who choose blindness are already blind in such choosing, it is something that happens in the mind without one’s full consent. If by culpable you mean imputable, of course everyone is to be held accountable for their own choices. Does that cover the options?

This means that they would be able to be forgiven… not that they weren’t culpable. :sad_yes:

That’s the whole point: they weren’t “normal people” like you and I – they had preternatural gifts that we don’t. Therefore, they really did understand the nature and consequences of their actions in ways that we don’t… and therefore, they really do ‘earn’ the consequences of their act.

The problem there is that if A&E had omniscience, then they already knew that the fruit would cause great harm to themselves and their offspring. People may risk their own lives to attain something they see as good, but it is not human to take such risk at the direct expense to their own children. So, if A&E knew enough to know that they were putting their children at great risk and ate the fruit anyway, we cannot relate to this couple as human. OTOH, if they were not of adequate knowledge such that they did not know the consequence to their children, then they did not know what they were doing, they did not know enough to make a truly informed decision.

So, those who interpret are put into the tricky position of making sure that A&E knew enough for them and their offspring to be punished instead of forgiven so that the story puts God in the best light. However, when we apply the Gospel, we know from Jesus that God is infinitely merciful, therefore any state of His creation is a manifestation of His mercy. It runs contrary to the image of a merciful God that some difficult aspect of our nature is imposed upon us because we did something wrong.

The creation stories can be read with an allegorical sense. When we read them too literally, the intent of the author is lost. The story of Adam and Eve has many intents, the main message is a call for obedience, IMO. Of course, there is a secondary intent to show that God is not to be blamed (thought badly of) for our human condition.

It’s really a great story, certainly worthy of in-depth examination. We can be grateful to Granny for encouraging examination!

 

[grannymh]

The creation stories can be read with an allegorical sense. When we read them too literally, the intent of the author is lost. The story of Adam and Eve has many intents, the main message is a call for obedience, IMO. Of course, there is a secondary intent to show that God is not to be blamed (thought badly of) for our human condition.

It’s really a great story, certainly worthy of in-depth examination. We can be grateful to Granny for encouraging examination!

Brief clarification for our readers.

This granny is not examining a great story with an allegorical sense. I am not looking for the lost intent of the author. I am not looking for an obedience message.

This granny is examining the literal language in the first three great chapters in the beginning of Sacred Scripture. This first literal statement is the most important. Here are the literal words. “God created”

 

[Gorgias]

If this were the case, the person who thinks an unborn child is of no value knows the character of the sin the same as a person who sees infinite value, just as long as they both have heard it is a grave sin.

Exactly. This is a question of knowledge, not of conscience.

Now, in his heart – that is, in his conscience – a person might take this knowledge of what the Church teaches, and decide to ignore it (e.g., because he doesn’t personally value the life of the unborn). But, if he does so, that’s a different question altogether. We’re talking about “knowledge” only. If you have the knowledge of what the Church teaches – regardless of your opinion of it – you’ve met the requirement here.

Does God work this way, not considering the depth of knowledge of the sinner? Evidence from the Gospel says this is not the case, as Christ forgave people “for they know not what they do”.

I’m not buying it. If you’re making the case that this doesn’t qualify as ‘sin’, then there’s no need for divine forgiveness. If, on the other hand, your case doesn’t hold up – that is, if it really is sinful – then Christ’s forgiveness is proof that knowledge in the absence of a well-formed conscience does, in fact, count as sin and culpable sin at that…!

If by culpable you mean “worthy of blame”

‘Blame’, I think, isn’t the issue. ‘Responsibility’ is. Culpability speaks to the question of whether a person is held accountable for the sin they’ve committed. (Therefore, culpability speaks to a necessity of divine forgiveness.)

an understanding can reveal that people who choose blindness are already blind in such choosing, it is something that happens in the mind without one’s full consent.

That doesn’t absolve one from culpability, however. The Catechism (#1791) asserts, " ignorance [of conscience] can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.’ In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits."

In another place (#1737), the Catechism states, “For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.” Even here, the Catechism is asserting that “blindness” of conscience isn’t necessarily sufficient to allow a person to be held unaccountable for their sin. (To be fair, it’s important to note that not all sin is automatically imputable; immediately prior to this passage, the Catechism notes that imputability may be diminished or wiped away entirely. However, this does not mean that it’s always ameliorated; just that it’s possible that it may be.)

If by culpable you mean imputable, of course everyone is to be held accountable for their own choices.

Not always. But often.

The problem there is that if A&E had omniscience

No, we’re not asserting ‘omniscience’, just ‘preternatural gifts’. The Church would teach that the result of original sin is a darkening of the intellect and a weakening of the will. These two things result in concupiscence (i.e., an inclination to commit sin, based on our sensitive appetite wanting things that we should know are sinful).

So, if Adam & Eve had preternatural gifts, then they should have known, at the very least, that this temptation was counter to God’s will for them; and, they wouldn’t have been tempted in the way that you and I are tempted to sin. Nevertheless, they sinned. It’s not the knowledge of consequences that makes an act sinful or not – it’s knowledge of the moral content of the decision.

People may risk their own lives to attain something they see as good, but it is not human to take such risk at the direct expense to their own children.

It seems like you’re espousing ‘consequentialism’ – that is, the idea that the moral content of an action depends only on its consequences. That idea is rejected by the Church (although many in secular society ascribe to it).

if they were not of adequate knowledge such that they did not know the consequence to their children, then they did not know what they were doing, they did not know enough to make a truly informed decision.

Not true: a conscience – well-formed or not – decides based on the morality of an act, not on the presence or lack of consequences. Hopefully, the perception of negative consequences ‘helps’ the conscience recognize immoral acts; however, the lack of perception of negative consequences does not render an act moral.

However, when we apply the Gospel, we know from Jesus that God is infinitely merciful, therefore any state of His creation is a manifestation of His mercy. It runs contrary to the image of a merciful God that some difficult aspect of our nature is imposed upon us because we did something wrong.

There’s a delicate balance between God’s mercy and God’s justice. The fact that concupiscence makes it ‘difficult’ to choose the Good should allow us to recognize that we run counter to God’s justice and must fall upon His mercy. You’re arguing ‘mercy and forgiveness’ as if it makes ‘consequences’ non-existent. It doesn’t. Rather, ‘mercy and forgiveness’ remove the very real consequences of our actions.

The creation stories can be read with an allegorical sense. When we read them too literally, the intent of the author is lost.

And, the teaching of the Church spells out that intent. The Catechism is one place where we encounter that teaching.

It’s really a great story, certainly worthy of in-depth examination. We can be grateful to Granny for encouraging examination!

 

[grannymh]

Good list!

Re. #2, any particular reason to specify the animal kingdom? Probably because Adam was given the task of naming them, or maybe because the creation of birds and fish (Day 5) and terrestrial animals (Day 6 - same day as humans) are specified differently in Genesis 1 than the way plants are mentioned in early Genesis.

In any case, in a sense #1 obviously includes every living (as well as non-living) thing, so plants, fungi, even microbes of all kinds, *etc. *along with the animals (including humans) - all are part of God’s creation. That’s a pretty easy, non-controversial application of the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1&2.

Why did I specify the Animal Kingdom? Because I admire animals. And you are right about Adam’s task of naming animals. In fact, I am partial to the literal biology language in Genesis 2: 20. It is obvious history that people have given names to animals. So there is no reason to doubt Adam’s actions in the first part of verse 20. It is the conclusion of verse 20, chapter 2, which is literal scientific language. I put the biology info in bold.

Genesis 2: 20
“The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.”

 

[cfauster]

… It is obvious history that people have given names to animals…

Indeed. I too love the image of God showing the animals to Adam, and Adam naming them. in as Privilege and Mission: Part OneImago Dei by Bishop Robert Barron, Barron notes:

*In the second account of creation, we hear that God wanted to make a suitable partner for the first man and so brought forth a variety of animals whom Adam named. The Church Fathers loved this image, for it signalled, they thought, the scientific and philosophical vocation of human beings.

It is crucially important to note that Adam named the animals, not arbitrarily, but rather kata Logon, according to the logos or inherent intelligibility placed in them by the Creator. Joseph Ratzinger and many others have argued that the modern physical sciences emerged when and where they did, precisely because of certain properly theological assumptions, namely that the world is not God and that the world, in every detail, is marked by intelligibility … In naming the animals, Adam is literally re-cognising them, acknowledging an intelligible structure that had already been thought into them by a creative intelligence. What we see here is the prophetic or truth-telling dimension of the imago Dei. Just as human beings are designed to praise God on behalf of all creation, so they are intended to name the truth of things, so that, through them, the universe might come to understand itself aright.*