Is Humanity "Fundamentally Flawed"?

[sw85]

It wasn’t in Adam and Eve’s original nature, but it is in ours. We are born with it. And even when original sin is removed by baptism, we still have an inclination toward sin. If that’s not a fundamental flaw, I don’t know what is.

No, I don’t believe this is true.

Original sin may be likened to a man who, out of generosity, gives away, for free, a sizable portion of his land to a homeless family. He furthermore promises that he will plant a fruit tree on their land, and if they can take care of it and induce to be fruitful, then he will plant many, many more. A year later, he returns and finds the fruit tree withered and dead from neglect, and so tears up the tree and does not plant the vineyard.

It’s true, in such a case, that the children suffer from the parents’ mistake. They will inherit the land after the parents are dead, but there will be no fruit trees on it. It doesn’t follow that they have had something taken away from them. It’s simply the case that they didn’t get something they didn’t deserve but also didn’t need and weren’t entitled to.

In this case, God gave us life, and He furthermore gave the first humans the promise of eternal life if they kept His laws. They didn’t, therefore they didn’t get eternal life. But by nature we don’t have eternal life: this was a supernatural grace, not a natural quality. Therefore the loss of it amounts to the loss of a supernatural grace and a return to normative human nature, not the loss of normative human nature and descent into corruption, as our Protestant friends would tell us.

 

[fhansen]

I understand and appreciate your concerns re: language. However…The Church does, through her magisterial offices approve translations etc. Certainly we English speakers can trust that the English translation is accurate in it’s particulars. So I don’t see language as being an insurmountable obstacle here.

It appears that you have taken the long way round to say - No you cannot provide documentation to confirm your statement "It is doctrine that we are fundamentally flawed". I emphasized the term you use - “doctrine” - because if it IS a doctrine then it certainly should be documented somewhere as such.

Interesting…your response here leads me to this question.
Is a baby born with a living or a dead soul?

Peace
James

I think the Church’s teaching would indicate that we’re all dead at birth due to the fact that we’re separated from God as a result of the Fall. And this is the very reason we must be born again/anew; this is why we’re born without knowledge of or faith in God let alone relationship/communion with Him-and this constitutes a disorder or injustice in our universe.

BTW, the Catechism uses the term “wounded” quite frequently to describe man’s condition.

 

[JRKH]

No, I don’t believe this is true.

Original sin may be likened to a man who, out of generosity, gives away, for free, a sizable portion of his land to a homeless family. He furthermore promises that he will plant a fruit tree on their land, and if they can take care of it and induce to be fruitful, then he will plant many, many more. A year later, he returns and finds the fruit tree withered and dead from neglect, and so tears up the tree and does not plant the vineyard.

It’s true, in such a case, that the children suffer from the parents’ mistake. They will inherit the land after the parents are dead, but there will be no fruit trees on it. It doesn’t follow that they have had something taken away from them. It’s simply the case that they didn’t get something they didn’t deserve but also didn’t need and weren’t entitled to.

In this case, God gave us life, and He furthermore gave the first humans the promise of eternal life if they kept His laws. They didn’t, therefore they didn’t get eternal life. But by nature we don’t have eternal life: this was a supernatural grace, not a natural quality. Therefore the loss of it amounts to the loss of a supernatural grace and a return to normative human nature, not the loss of normative human nature and descent into corruption, as our Protestant friends would tell us.

Interesting…

 

[Uzziah1]

I understand and appreciate your concerns re: language. However…The Church does, through her magisterial offices approve translations etc. Certainly we English speakers can trust that the English translation is accurate in it’s particulars. So I don’t see language as being an insurmountable obstacle here.

It appears that you have taken the long way round to say - No you cannot provide documentation to confirm your statement "It is doctrine that we are fundamentally flawed". I emphasized the term you use - “doctrine” - because if it IS a doctrine then it certainly should be documented somewhere as such.

Interesting…your response here leads me to this question.
Is a baby born with a living or a dead soul?

Peace
James

I’m sorry, but you are interpreting me wrong. In my opinion the statement of the Second Council of Orange indicates, “Man is born fundamentally flawed.”

As you listen to yourself, you may not think that you are “stuck on words.” As I read your words, I see that you are, in fact, “stuck on words.”

In the language of the Secoind Council of Orange, a baby is born with a “dead soul.”

This is why the baby needs Baptism.

This is why a Limbo-like state is necessary for infants who pass away unbaptized. (I am aware that the Church made commitment to a Limbo concept optional. I believe that this was error.)

 

[JRKH]

As you listen to yourself, you may not think that you are “stuck on words.” As I read your words, I see that you are, in fact, “stuck on words.”

Words are the means by which we communicate ideas. In matters of determining what is “Doctrine”, that is, clear essential teachings of the Church, words are very important and the magisterium is very careful in their use of terminology and also in translating terms.
So yes - I will happily admit to being “stuck on words” for the express purpose of being clear on what is being communicated. For example…Look carefully at what your words communicate below:

I’m sorry, but you are interpreting me wrong. In my opinion the statement of the Second Council of Orange indicates, “Man is born fundamentally flawed.”

So - it is your opinion that the statement from the council indicates that man is born fundamentally flawed…

Now let’s compare this to what you stated earlier…

It is doctrine that we are fundamentally flawed. It is called “the stain of Original Sin.”

(Bolding mine)
Your use of the term “Doctrine” here indicates something much different from what you are are saying above…A Doctrine is a clearly stated teaching. That is why I asked for documentation. You are unable to provide said documentation therefore…it cannot be said to be “Doctrine”…

You are more than free to say what you believe to be true…That the statement from the council of Orange indicates…but that is different from saying something is “doctrine”.

I don’t say that above as an attack, but simply to explain that the careful use of terms is necessary in these conversations in order to maintain clarity.

In the language of the Second Council of Orange, a baby is born with a “dead soul.”

This is why the baby needs Baptism.

I find this interesting and troubling…Could you provide a link to the appropriate passages covering this.

Thanks a lot…

Peace
James

 

[Uzziah1]

I find this interesting and troubling…Could you provide a link to the appropriate passages covering this.

In the language of the Second Council of Orange, a baby is born with a “dead soul.” :

Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)].

**This is why the baby needs Baptism. **:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. CCC Para 1257.

If babies were bound for the Beatific Vision when they died after not being baptized, it would NOT be true that for them “Baptism is necessary.”

So, stop being troubled!

 

[MarcoPolo]

But by nature we don’t have eternal life: this was a supernatural grace, not a natural quality. Therefore the loss of it amounts to the loss of a supernatural grace and a return to normative human nature, not the loss of normative human nature and descent into corruption, as our Protestant friends would tell us.

To what would you say the “wound” in man is as referenced in CCC#405, (see post 7 above).

 

[Uzziah1]

Words are the means by which we communicate ideas. In matters of determining what is “Doctrine”, that is, clear essential teachings of the Church, words are very important and the magisterium is very careful in their use of terminology and also in translating terms.
So yes - I will happily admit to being “stuck on words” for the express purpose of being clear on what is being communicated. For example…Look carefully at what your words communicate below:

So - it is your opinion that the statement from the council indicates that man is born fundamentally flawed…

Now let’s compare this to what you stated earlier…

(Bolding mine)
Your use of the term “Doctrine” here indicates something much different from what you are are saying above…A Doctrine is a clearly stated teaching. That is why I asked for documentation. You are unable to provide said documentation therefore…it cannot be said to be “Doctrine”…

You are more than free to say what you believe to be true…That the statement from the council of Orange indicates…but that is different from saying something is “doctrine”.

I don’t say that above as an attack, but simply to explain that the careful use of terms is necessary in these conversations in order to maintain clarity.

I find this interesting and troubling…Could you provide a link to the appropriate passages covering this.

Thanks a lot…

Peace
James

Somebody is “stuck on words” if they insist that particular words be repeated, as opposed to a paraphrasing of their meaning.

If words are “paraphrase-able,” they have no definition.

They are meaningless.

 

[TEPO]

No. The notion of original sin as producing a corruption in human nature is a Protestant innovation, certainly not consistent with the Catholic conception of it. Our understanding of original sin is that it entailed the loss of supernatural grace, i.e., we fell from the heights to which God had elevated us back to the level of human nature. Protestants would say we fell from unspoiled human nature and became corrupted. Most Catholics don’t get it because (if the polls are to be believed) most Catholics are really Protestants, and because catechesis is and has been terrible in this country for decades.

The idea of anything be flawed by nature is simply a non sequitur. By definition whether or not something is flawed is “whether or not it fully instantiates its nature.” A flawed diamond is flawed because it includes something in it that isn’t a diamond, i.e., dirt. Likewise, a flawed person is a person who is flawed because he includes something that isn’t in his nature, i.e., sin. That’s what sin is – a perversion of our natures, a thing that is itself unnatural.

So how are we to interpret concupiscience then…?

 

[fhansen]

So how are we to interpret concupiscience then…?

Concupiscence is what happens when God’s no longer in control, when grace is no longer operative in us. IOW, concupiscence is what happens when man is in “control”, with the end result that control of reason over the lower appetites is lacking, concupiscence presenting a major struggle for us.

 

[TEPO]

The way I understood it was that Adam and eve were given special graces that allowed them to be of pure conscience -that is until evil was externally influenced upon them. After the fall, man was corrupted, and was from then on subject to evil desires from within, not necessarily requiring outside influence.

I’m not claiming that my interpretation is the official Church position, but rather just the way I have come to understand as a cradle Catholic, with very little Protestant influence.

 

[TEPO]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#section_2

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice” (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subjected to the control of reason and the will. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order.[8] By sinning, however, Adam lost this original “state,” not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).

 

[TEPO]

Concupiscence is what happens when God’s no longer in control, when grace is no longer operative in us. IOW, concupiscence is what happens when man is in “control”, with the end result that control of reason over the lower appetites is lacking, concupiscence presenting a major struggle for us.

So you’re saying we can evade actual concupisence, or rather we can just work around it thanks to Christs sacrifice…?

(if you state the former ill need reference sources)

 

[fhansen]

So you’re saying we can evade actual concupisence, or rather we can just work around it thanks to Christs sacrifice…?

(if you state the former ill need reference sources)

We can-and must -win the battle over sin due to Christs sacrifice. That’s the purpose of the New Covenant, promising to accomplish in us what the Law couldn’t accomplish according to the prophesy in Jer 31 and elsewhere:

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Now it may take purgatory in order to finally complete this process of justification, but Gods’ will will eventually be done in us-unless we’re unwilling/uncooperative with His grace.

Other relevant verses include Matt 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

…as well as:
**For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. **Rom 2:13

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. Gal 6:7-10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10

Having said that, the struggle with concupiscence is generally considered to be life-long for us all, with us dependent on God in any case to ‘finish the good work He began in us’. How this is worked out in the New Covenant is explained in the Catechism under the following:

**III. THE NEW LAW OR THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19

1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:
If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one’s life.20

1967 The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.” It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
**

 

[fhansen]

There’s more to chew on in the Catechism from the following:

**1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin”(fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish."13 Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition callsconcupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life.14 This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.15

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

• by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;313
• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314
• by prayer:
  I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.315**

 

[TEPO]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

I wonder though -how can we claim that humanity is “fundamentally” flawed when considering the Immaculate Conception… Certainly Grace is something given and not necessarily something earned. (see signature)

I believe the word “fundamentally” is a bit too extreme.

 

[TEPO]

Fhansen, we’ve been given the sacraments and the “temple of the Holy Spirit” which is the Holy Church to enable us to receive sanctifying and saving grace… But we can never claim to be able to reach perfection on our own -whether that relies on our willingness to accept grace or not. Neither do our charities “earn” us more grace.

We have no authority to claim to be able to become sinless Unless God deems it so… we do have the devil to tend with afterall… He is real.

…but I will try to reflect more on your posts and will run a check ony conscience.

 

[fhansen]

Fhansen, we’ve been given the sacraments and the “temple of the Holy Spirit” which is the Holy Church to enable us to receive sanctifying and saving grace… But we can never claim to be able to reach perfection on our own -whether that relies on our willingness to accept grace or not. Neither do our charities “earn” us more grace.

We have no authority to claim to be able to become sinless Unless God deems it so… we do have the devil to tend with afterall… He is real.

…but I will try to reflect more on your posts and will run a check ony conscience.

Well, the New Covenant has nothing to do with reaching perfection on our own-just the opposite, in fact- but it does have to do with reaching perfection nonetheless, perfection defined as simply being who God created us to be, no more and no less.

It does, however, involve our wills. As Augustine said:
The God who gave you free will does not violate it to save you

 

[JRKH]

Somebody is “stuck on words” if they insist that particular words be repeated, as opposed to a paraphrasing of their meaning.

If words are “paraphrase-able,” they have no definition.

They are meaningless.

As you wish…
But if we cannot have a meeting of the minds on the definition of terms, then we cannot have a meaningful conversation. We will simply wind up talking past one another.

I do thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut though.

Peace
James