Is suffering always evil?

[tonyrey]

A little off topic, but I wonder how much we should fear suffering? I fear it greatly given all the suffering I see in the world. In just moment, our life can change to terror. I’m learning to have faith, but I still fear. Whoever cannot see it is blind.

We can get to the stage where we fear fear! In other words we can suffer unnecessarily by imagining our suffering will be beyond our endurance. I’ve learnt from experience it’s better not to be pessimistic because usually my fears have been unfounded. Having been in extreme danger of death twice in my life I remember I was in such a state of shock I seemed to be a detached observer. It was only afterwards and even now I shudder more than I did at the time. I believe that when suffering becomes too great our nervous system makes us lose consciousness and in extreme cases die of shock like birds paralysed with terror. Our loving Father in heaven must impose a limit on His children’s agony.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Tony, I have created a post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13052405&postcount=52 to respond to all of your questions. Have you missed it perchance?

 

[lmelahn]

We are in total agreement. Only the words are different. A “justifiable lie” and a “justifiable theft” are still lies and thefts, but the difference that they can be justified. The very minor problem with your wording that there is no simple word for describing a justifiable act. We must use the somewhat cumbersome phrase consisting of two words.

Excellent. It is not incompatible with the utilitarian approach, though it can lead to conflict. I also consider the individual happiness and well-being extremely important, but I understand that sometimes there is a need to compromise.

Certainly. That is why we prepend the word “justified” to them, to indicate the qualitative difference.

Words of pure gold!

Agreed.

Anything can lead to problems, if taken to the extreme.

Looks like we say the exact same things while using slightly different wordings.

In that case, you have re-stated Aquinas’ natural law ethics, perhaps without realizing it. That is the idea: we base our moral principles on the rights that accrue to human beings as persons (a.k.a. to “human nature,” in more traditional Thomistic parlance, a term he uses to emphasize that we all have the same dignity).

The most serious problem with utilitarianism—at least Bentham’s and Stuart Mill’s version—is that it does not distinguish between kinds of goods; it tends to reduce all goods to utility, and, at the end of the day, it reduces utility to pleasure. But in reality, pleasure and utility are only in function of the authentic good.

For example, I think it is obvious to most people that no amount of money (a useful good with no value in itself) and no amount of pleasure could possibly justify murdering someone. There are certain rights that are simply so fundamental that deliberately violating them is always wrong.

Utilitarianism is OK if it is contextualized: if we are trying to allocate strictly useful goods, like money or commodities, then the theory works pretty well. But if we forget that certain goods are incommensurable (e.g., a man’s life vs. pleasure or money, for example), then we can get into problems.

For instance, that is how the Nazis tried to justify euthanizing the mentally handicapped: they argued that the mentally handicapped were using up useful resources, and their life (according to the Nazis!) was not worth living anyhow, so they might as well be liquidated.

 

[lmelahn]

So far, so good. And it would be a very welcome first step.

You lost me here. I certainly have committed many “sinful” acts (like extramarital sex, or forbidden positions) and they only brought me happiness, and no suffering at all.

Well, whenever we violate the rights of others or our own rights (a.k.a. commit sins), the collateral effect is that we fail to be fulfilled as human beings. That is the most fundamental suffering. If we commit a grave violation, we are unable to be at peace, at least until we repent and make as much reparation as we are able to.

There are usually other collateral effects, including psychological and physical suffering. But even when those are absent, the moral suffering is present.

I realize that this is not a settled point yet, but if we assume for the moment that God is in the picture, a grave sin is also makes friendship with God impossible. In reality, God is the only one who can truly make us fulfilled and happy, and so placing oneself outside of His friendship is the very worst of frustrations.

Again, it would be a good solution (maybe the best ), but there are other ones. For example to get rid of the concept of “sin”.

Well, it is not so easy to do that. Sin, as I said, consists precisely in those actions that violate either our own rights or someone else’s. It is, I think, obvious that we are capable of doing some pretty dreadful things (e.g., the Shoah). If we tried to do a way with the idea of sin, then it would be hard to argue against the even the gravest of injustices.

This alleged “fall” was the result of some unspecified “disobedience” (if you read Genesis as an allegory) or eating from the “tree” if you read it as a literal description of the events. The simple and logical solution to avoid the “fall” would have been not to order them to avoid that tree, or simply do not place the tree there. No tree, no commandment, no disobedience, no “original sin”, no “fall”. Everyone is happy, we would still live in the Garden.

As you point out, the account of the Fall should not be taken hyper-literally. What the first man did (or at any rate, the first men: we are not required to believe in a single First Pair, necessarily, as long we recognize that there was a Fall) was some kind of grave injustice. The Scriptures are silent as to what exactly that injustice was—which is why it is symbolized by the fruit of a tree.

The problem with the solution you are proposing, it seems to me, is that it would have greatly restricted man’s freedom. Unless man has a real possibility of committing injustices—of abusing his freedom, in a word—then he is not really free.

It was better to give man the real possibility of loving God, and take the risk that there would be sin and (consequently) suffering, than to take away our freedom, and hence diminish our ability to love.

A simple analogy is due here. A father knows that eating candy is unhealthy for the child. He can place that bowl of nice colorful and desirable candy within easy reach of the child, AND issue a stern order: “do not touch that candy”… OR he simply would lock the candy into the wardrobe, and say nothing. No command, no candy, no disobedience, no “sin”. Which is the better solution?

There is a difference: the first man had integral nature, which means that all of his passions were in order. He would not even have been tempted by the candy, but would have joyfully obeyed his father.

Notice that in the Scriptural account, the Devil had to intervene directly in order to tempt our first parents. If he had not, they would not have been interested in the sin.

I can’t help but read the Genesis as a deliberate act of God to make sure that the humans will fall, so he can exercise his “righteous” anger, chase them away from his presence and curse them along with the whole creation. And to add insult to injury - he KNEW all the time that it will happen! If that is not the ultimate cruelty, I don’t know what is. Even if there is a later reconciliation with the unnecessary sacrifice of Jesus, there are all those countless humans, for whom there is no “pardon” because they all lived before the sacrifice happened.

No, He was not hoping for our first parents to fall. Quite the opposite. He wanted to give them an opportunity to love Him freely, so He had to give them the freedom to do the opposite, and an occasion to exercise that freedom in the right way.

What we interpret as God’s “anger” is actually the effects of the Fall. Those effects are, if you like, a kind of punishment, but the punishment exists to help us repent and turn back to God. God is love, and He always wants what is best for His creatures. In case were not convinced of that, He became man, and, through His Passion, he showed us to what extreme degree He loved us.

Clearly, God knew what would happen, but He did not compel our parents to act one way or the other.

 

[lmelahn]

It is nice analogy - for young and strong people. They enjoy the challenge and the feeling of the victory. As you will grow older, you will appreciate the sight, the end even when you reach it by a cable car, especially if you would be unable to scale that mountainside.

Certainly, but to each his own. Perhaps for an elderly person the trip up the cable car is sacrifice enough.

And one more thing. If you had a real accident, like a broken leg and would be trapped halfway up the mountain, there would be no enjoyment left. Only pain and suffering, and probably a slow and painful death.

(Totally off-topic, but that is why people should never go hiking alone on a high mountain, and without telling someone where they will be hiking.)

There is no need to answer if you don’t want to, but has that been your experience of life, that the suffering has been so intense as to take away all enjoyment in life?

Let’s not go into the empty speculation about the nature of heaven and hell.

It suffices to understand that heaven consists in the Vision of God, or perfect union with Him, which is the ultimate desire of all human beings.

Hell is the ultimate consequence of rejecting that union, which is accomplished by committing acts of injustice and persisting in them.

There are some extremist people in the Philippines, who want to emulate Christ’s Passion and have themselves crucified. Their pain and suffering is real, but they elicit no sympathy from me. It is their fault, lets them suffer to their hearts’ content.

That is clearly a disorder and a misunderstanding of the Redemption. Christ took on our sufferings so that we did not have to take them on. We need not—and should not—look for extra suffering; what we receive from life is plenty.

That is more empty speculation. The incurred “debt” was his own doing, since he knew up front that the humans will “fall” and there was no reason to let it happen.

I explained above that God gave us the gift of freedom, while knowing that it could be abused. He did not, however, want us to abuse it.

The suffering (which includes pain) of animals and small children is not something they “chose” to endure for the sake of repayment of that “debt”. Their suffering is truly gratuitous.

Note that no one ever chooses suffering for its own sake. Sometimes, we might elect to endure suffering for the sake of a greater good, but for the most part it simply falls on us without our asking for it.

As to why God permits small children (and animals) to suffer, I do not have all the answers. However, we do know that one of the consequences of giving man the ability to abuse his freedom—to commit injustices—is that he can cause real damage to other men. Otherwise the freedom would be fictitious. Moreover, one of the consequences of the Fall is that nature itself is not in harmony any longer. That is why we are susceptible to diseases, natural disasters, and things like that.

We also know that innocent people never suffer in vain, which is to say, that their patience is amply rewarded by the good that actually matters the most: union with God.

(Notice that the suffering of animals, although it is real, does not have the same moral significance as the suffering of human beings. They are not personal beings, as we are, which is why we cannot fault a lion, say, for “murdering”*a gazelle for food.)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Utilitarianism is OK if it is contextualized: if we are trying to allocate strictly useful goods, like money or commodities, then the theory works pretty well. But if we forget that certain goods are incommensurable (e.g., a man’s life vs. pleasure or money, for example), then we can get into problems.

Nothing can be done in vacuum. One needs to analyze the whole picture, and perform a cost-benefit analysis. There are no real incommensurables, only very different “multiplication factors”

For instance, that is how the Nazis tried to justify euthanizing the mentally handicapped: they argued that the mentally handicapped were using up useful resources, and their life (according to the Nazis!) was not worth living anyhow, so they might as well be liquidated.

Again, this is an empty evaluation, without specifics. If the resources are either used to maintain someone in persistent vegetative state, like Terry Schiavo, or they could be used to provide healing for many people, who are not about to die, but whose life would be enhanced by a therapy, then the choice is not easy… but the needs of several people take precedence over the needs of one.

Just recall the well-known trolley-problem. If you must choose to kill one person in order to save five, then you must choose to kill the solitary person - all other things being equal. If however that solitary person is an Einstein, and the five ones are escaped killers, then the solution is different.

The point is that there is no “formula”, into which we plug in the “parameters” of a few people, and the result will tell us, what to do. Each individual case needs to be studied in detail.

I can only speak for myself. I have a living will, in which I stipulate that if I ever get into a persistent vegetative state, I do not want any artificial maintenance, not even the simple ones, like proving nutrition. For me life itself is not valuable, only enjoyable life has value. Unfortunately most countries prohibit physician assisted suicide, even if the patient actively demands it. Hopefully it will change in the future.

Well, whenever we violate the rights of others or our own rights (a.k.a. commit sins), the collateral effect is that we fail to be fulfilled as human beings. That is the most fundamental suffering. If we commit a grave violation, we are unable to be at peace, at least until we repent and make as much reparation as we are able to.

What you consider a “grave violation” is different from what I consider as such.

There are usually other collateral effects, including psychological and physical suffering. But even when those are absent, the moral suffering is present.

What the heck is a “moral suffering”? I never heard of such a thing. Suffering is either physical or mental.

The problem with the solution you are proposing, it seems to me, is that it would have greatly restricted man’s freedom. Unless man has a real possibility of committing injustices—of abusing his freedom, in a word—then he is not really free.

This is the point where we disagree. As far as I am concerned, the freedom to choose chocolate ice-cream over vanilla is sufficient freedom. My love toward someone else is not contingent upon my freedom to commit a murder. The usual problem is that you see everything in black-and-white. If I cannot commit genocide, then my love is “meaningless”.

No, He was not hoping for our first parents to fall. Quite the opposite. He wanted to give them an opportunity to love Him freely, so He had to give them the freedom to do the opposite, and an occasion to exercise that freedom in the right way.

There is no “hope” for God. There is only ironclad knowledge.

Clearly, God knew what would happen, but He did not compel our parents to act one way or the other.

Well, not so fast. There are only two options: 1) either God could have created a pair of humans, who would freely chose to obey, or 2) God was unable to create such humans - which is impossible, since God is only unable to create logical contradictions. In the first case to choose Adam and Eve (who would freely disobey) instead of Steve and Susie (who would freely not disobey) means that God wanted humanity to fail. He deliberately chose Adam and Eve, not randomly. There is no uncertainty for God, whatever he does is volitional and deliberate. He deliberately chose Adam and Eve, and not Steve and Susie. For God there is no “foreseen but unintended” consequences.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, I have created a post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13052405&postcount=52 to respond to all of your questions. Have you missed it perchance?

Sorry for the delay, Pallas. I’ve had so many practical problems to solve - including a car which for weeks has refused to start in the most inconvenient places, e.g. an underground car park and a recycling centre just before closing time. At last the problem has been solved: a faulty crankshaft sensor. So here is my belated reply (Part One):

I don’t understand what you want. We were talking about “what is a miracle?” so I presented you with an undeniable miracle of rearranging the stars into a readable pattern which is really impossible to happen without supernatural intervention. For some unexplained reason you did not like it, and wanted a more “close-to-Earth”, biological, healing type of miracle. So I produced one, and now you don’t like that one either.

It isn’t a question of liking but logic! The sole purpose of your miracle is to compel everyone to believe in God making it impossible to be genuinely independent.

So what do you want now? A doubtable miracle? If a miracle can be doubted, it is not a true miracle.

I don’t want anything! There have been many miracles which have transformed people’s lives, notably that of Saul who was persecuting Christians until he became one of the greatest apostles.

Of course a real, bona fide, impossible-to-explain-away public miracle would be a huge incentive toward accepting at least the idea of some supernatural, but it would NOT coerce anyone into any specific type of behavior. As the Bible shows, even when the living God mingled with humans it did not take away their freedom to disobey. And while the display of the stars would undoubtedly point to the existence of the Christian God, the healing of ALL the amputees would be inferior in that respect. It would not point to any god, just to some unexplained supernatural.

Then why such aversion to Big Brother watching everything we do?

So what do you want? (By the way, we cannot “choose” what we believe, our beliefs do not reside in the volitional part - grey cells - of the brain. Of course “how to live” is volitional.)

If we cannot choose what to believe we certainly cannot choose what to do because our conscious behaviour is mainly determined by what we believe is beneficial for others and ourselves. Without the intellect volition is irrational.

Feasible according to what criteria, what level of technology? As the believers say: “with God everything is possible”. A usually accepted definition of omnipotence is to be able to do everything except logically impossible states of affairs. To create a stable world without natural disasters is child’s play for an omnipotent being.

Only if it transforms the world into a Utopia for which no feasible blueprint has ever been forthcoming. How could every disaster be prevented without undermining the predictability of events?

One feasible scenario would be a Gaia-type universe, where there is a common, shared consciousness, where even the non-living planets and stars would participate in this consciousness and actively prevent Earthquakes, undesirable distribution of precipitation, where the plants would grow special appendices to feed the animals, where everyone would a vegetarian or vegan, etc… I suggest you read Asimov’s Foundation series, where he describes such a world. Of course I am already suspicious that you will not like this feasible world either, because it describes a “utopia”.

Of course we are playing with a thought experiment here, so anything and everything goes, which is not a logically contradictory event. So let your imagination go wild and imagine whatever you want.

Again it isn’t a question of liking but logic. There is a vast difference between fantasy and fact. If there is no basis in reality for a hypothetical world there is no reason to believe it is feasible. Science fiction is entertaining but uninformative with regard to real life problems. The best test of any theory is whether it works in practice rather than consisting of no more than armchair speculation.

A short remark: the expression “natural evil” has polluted our dictionary. Natural disasters are not “evil”. The real meaning of “evil” or “wicked” is a conscious action which causes or allows unnecessary pain and suffering. The phrase “natural evil” is an oxymoron.

It is an accepted and widely used term in philosophy to distinguish it from moral evil.

By the way, if God is impotent to create a world without natural disasters, I would be very happy to live in an “inferior” world where there are no “moral evils”.

As a mental slave?!

There is no such thing as a free lunch…

Yes, there is. If you would ever be in the neighborhood, I would invite you to a free lunch. And I am a very good cook, and would not charge you a penny.

I would feel under an obligation to express my gratitude!

The end does not justify the means but it is subject to the principle that we should choose the lesser evil.

I agree with you here. But what is the level of the “lesser” evil, which is permissible? If you have the power to decrease the level of pain and suffering, and fail to do so, then you did not choose the “least possible level of evil”. Do you think that the absolute minimal level of pain and suffering is still a positive number? That not even God can make a world without ANY pain and suffering? Surely not, if you believe that the Garden of Eden was real.

Eden is a myth:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures…

 

[tonyrey]

PART TWO

In my neck of the woods, you certainly can lie, or steal or even kill in some very well defined circumstances (for example to save someone else’s life) … but I subscribe to the utilitarian ethics. The Catholic “morality” does not subscribe to the utilitarian ethics, it is strictly deontological. So they need to resort to “redefining” the words “steal” and “lie”, instead of accepting that the end and the means cannot be separated, and evaluating them together we can decide if the combined action is acceptable or not. The concept of “white lie” does not exist for Catholics. For heathens like us, it is perfectly valid.

I prefer the term “the lesser evil” (which simplifies life) and regard Catholic morality as teleological rather than deontological. It is based on God’s love for us and inevitably on the purpose for which we are created. The paramount criterion of every choice and decision should be whether it is motivated by concern for the ultimate well-being and happiness of everyone insofar as that is possible. We cannot compel others to do what is right, nor do we have the right to do so because we’re not infallible. Even so every civilised person agrees on the fundamental principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are based on Christ’s teaching that we are all children of the same Father. Otherwise we would be related solely by an accident of birth with no reason (apart from expedience) to believe in rights at all. They would be no more than human conventions that can be (and often are, alas) disregarded with impunity.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sorry for the delay, Pallas. I’ve had so many practical problems to solve - including a car which for weeks has refused to start in the most inconvenient places, e.g. an underground car park and a recycling centre just before closing time. At last the problem has been solved: a faulty crankshaft sensor.

I am glad that the problem is resolved.

It isn’t a question of liking but logic! The sole purpose of your miracle is to compel everyone to believe in God making it impossible to be genuinely independent.

Believing or not believing something does not compel or force anyone into any specific action. Even you (generic) who strongly believe God’s existence, and who strongly believe that certain actions are “sinful” are not forced to avoid those actions. You have a strong incentive to avoid them, but not “forced” to avoid them. Your free will is intact.

If we cannot choose what to believe we certainly cannot choose what to do because our conscious behaviour is mainly determined by what we believe is beneficial for others and ourselves. Without the intellect volition is irrational.

What you believe does not “determine” your actions, because there are many possible actions based upon a certain belief. You use the word “mainly” and that is the crux of the matter. Not to mention that your strong belief about God does not prevent you from “sinning”. Beliefs are not volitional. Acting or not acting on those beliefs is certainly volitional.

Only if it transforms the world into a Utopia for which no feasible blueprint has ever been forthcoming. How could every disaster be prevented without undermining the predictability of events?

There is nothing wrong with utopia. You skimmed over my question: “feasible according to what level of technology”, and that is the point.

A few hundred years ago some “crazy” visionary would say that it is possible to have instant communication (voice and picture) with someone on a different continent. When someone asked for a “feasible” blueprint, he would just shrug and say that there is nothing illogical about such technology, so it can be done. He would not know the technical details, of course. Now we have the internet, we have Skype, and there is the instant communication.

Today some visionary can ponder if we shall have instant communication with someone from another galaxy? You come around and inquire about a “feasible blueprint”. The visionary answers that the “wormholes” in space would offer such a technology. He would not know the technical details.

Again it isn’t a question of liking but logic. There is a vast difference between fantasy and fact.

Today’s fantasy is tomorrow’s technology. And that is not a flippant remark.

If there is no basis in reality for a hypothetical world there is no reason to believe it is feasible.

On the very contrary. If there is no logically contradictory set of events, then a very advanced technology can do it, and there is nothing more advanced than God’s omnipotence. We have no idea how to create a self-regulating conscious world, but since there is nothing contradictory about it, God can do it.

Don’t forget, what is “feasible” is contingent upon the technology.

It is an accepted and widely used term in philosophy to distinguish it from moral evil.

I know, and I hate it, because it is so imprecise. There is nothing “evil” about an avalanche, however, if someone could prevent it and failed to do so, that would be “evil”.

As a mental slave?!

Are you a mental slave? I don’t think so. Only a very small percentage of the people commits moral atrocities. The vast majority is free to do them, but simply does not want to do them. There is nothing useful about allowing excessive “freedom”. It is enough to have the freedom to choose if you want to hug and kiss your child once or twice. There is no need to have the freedom to get a baseball bat and beat him to a bloody pulp, or death.

I would feel under an obligation to express my gratitude!

That is very kind of you, but the scenario is deeper than that. You said that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAAFL). But the lunch I offer is free for you, though it is not free for me. However, for an omnipotent God, who can simply “want” something, and will miraculously happen, there IS a free lunch.

Eden is a myth

Well, that is your opinion. But you are not compelled to deny or accept it. The church allows you to believe Genesis either literally, or allegorically, as you wish.

 

[Richca]

As you point out, the account of the Fall should not be taken hyper-literally. What the first man did (or at any rate, the first men: we are not required to believe in a single First Pair, necessarily, as long we recognize that there was a Fall) was some kind of grave injustice. The Scriptures are silent as to what exactly that injustice was—which is why it is symbolized by the fruit of a tree.

Imelahn, that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the human race from which all human beings are descended from is the teaching of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the dogmatic decisions of the councils and magisterium of the Church since before the time of Christ down to Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and recent pronouncements by popes on the subject which can be found in the footnote of #390 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Polygenism, as Pope Pius XII declared in the encyclical Humani Generis, is not an acceptable view for catholics to hold. And Pope Paul VI said that polygenism is irreconcilable with the dogma and divine revelation of original sin which as the Church teaches is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam and Eve by generation and propagation, not by imitation.

The CCC#389 says " the Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."

And #390 “Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

And #404 " It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice"

 

[lmelahn]

Imelahn, that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the human race from which all human beings are descended from is the teaching of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the dogmatic decisions of the councils and magisterium of the Church since before the time of Christ down to Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and recent pronouncements by popes on the subject which can be found in the footnote of #390 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Polygenism, as Pope Pius XII declared in the encyclical Humani Generis, is not an acceptable view for catholics to hold. And Pope Paul VI said that polygenism is irreconcilable with the dogma and divine revelation of original sin which as the Church teaches is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam and Eve by generation and propagation, not by imitation.

The CCC#389 says " the Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."

And #390 “Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

And #404 " It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice"

That is not perfectly clear, and none of the statements by the pontiffs are meant to be definitive.

The important points that must remain firm are as follows:

• The first men were created in the state of grace with various praeternatural gifts (impassibility, immortality, integral nature, infused knowledge).
• There was a Fall that consisted in some kind of grave sin, by which our first parents lost the state of grace, and consequently the praeternatural gifts.
• The principle effects of that Fall are the deprivation of sanctifying grace (a.k.a. “original sin”), the loss of the praeternatural gifts, the dimming of the intellect and the weakening of the will, and the tendency to sin (concupiscence).
• Those effects are transmitted by the first parents to all their descendents (and we are all descended from them).
• Baptism effects the remission of original sin (it gives us sanctifying grace), but does not remove its collateral effects.

The Church does not insist on any particular interpretation of the account of the Fall in Genesis, so long as those points are maintained.

Both Pius XII was of the opinion that it was difficult to reconcile polygenism with the doctrine of Original Sin, however his opinion is actually quite nuanced:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

He does not, however, say that it is impossible to reconcile them.

I was not able to find Bl. Paul VI’s opinion about this. Are you thinking about some document in particular?

 

[tonyrey]

It isn’t a question of liking but logic! The sole purpose of your miracle is to compel everyone to believe in God making it impossible to be genuinely independent.

Only a lunatic would ignore the overwhelming evidence you have suggested! It would amount to committing intellectual suicide.

If we cannot choose what to believe we certainly cannot choose what to do because our conscious behaviour is mainly determined by what we believe is beneficial for others and ourselves. Without the intellect volition is irrational.

What you believe does not “determine” your actions, because there are many possible actions based upon a certain belief. You use the word “mainly” and that is the crux of the matter. Not to mention that your strong belief about God does not prevent you from “sinning”. Beliefs are not volitional. Acting or not acting on those beliefs is certainly volitional.

Do you mean **all **our beliefs are **caused **by events beyond our control?

Only if it transforms the world into a Utopia for which no feasible blueprint has ever been forthcoming. How could every disaster be prevented without undermining the predictability of events?

There is nothing wrong with utopia. You skimmed over my question: “feasible according to what level of technology”, and that is the point.

Our level of technology certainly couldn’t create a perfect world nor is there any evidence that it ever will.

A few hundred years ago some “crazy” visionary would say that it is possible to have instant communication (voice and picture) with someone on a different continent. When someone asked for a “feasible” blueprint, he would just shrug and say that there is nothing illogical about such technology, so it can be done. He would not know the technical details, of course. Now we have the internet, we have Skype, and there is the instant communication.

Today some visionary can ponder if we shall have instant communication with someone from another galaxy? You come around and inquire about a “feasible blueprint”. The visionary answers that the “wormholes” in space would offer such a technology. He would not know the technical details.

Scientific progress does not imply the possibility of ultimate perfection in every detail. How could **every **flaw, failure, accident and disaster be prevented?

Again it isn’t a question of liking but logic. There is a vast difference between fantasy and fact.

Today’s fantasy is tomorrow’s technology. And that is not a flippant remark.

Tomorrow’s technology will always be subject to the limitations of human insight and intelligence.

If there is no basis in reality for a hypothetical world there is no reason to believe it is feasible.

On the very contrary. If there is no logically contradictory set of events, then a very advanced technology can do it, and there is nothing more advanced than God’s omnipotence. We have no idea how to create a self-regulating conscious world, but since there is nothing contradictory about it, God can do it.

Don’t forget, what is “feasible” is contingent upon the technology.

Hypothetical perfection is a mental construct for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It amounts to believing human science can cater for** every** possible contingency in an immensely complex universe with countless events occurring at every second and innumerable living organisms constantly pursuing different goals. Variety is the spice of life and it is the essence of imperfection!

It is an accepted and widely used term in philosophy to distinguish it from moral evil.

I know, and I hate it, because it is so imprecise. There is nothing “evil” about an avalanche, however, if someone could prevent it and failed to do so, that would be “evil”.

The effects of an avalanche are extremely precise and identical to a snowfall caused by a terrorist. The only difference is the cause.

As a mental slave?!

Are you a mental slave? I don’t think so. Only a very small percentage of the people commits moral atrocities. The vast majority is free to do them, but simply does not want to do them. There is nothing useful about allowing excessive “freedom”. It is enough to have the freedom to choose if you want to hug and kiss your child once or twice. There is no need to have the freedom to get a baseball bat and beat him to a bloody pulp, or death.

How could such limits be imposed without making it obvious that moral evil is being prevented? Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever misbehaved?

I would feel under an obligation to express my gratitude!

That is very kind of you, but the scenario is deeper than that. You said that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAAFL). But the lunch I offer is free for you, though it is not free for me. However, for an omnipotent God, who can simply “want” something, and will miraculously happen, there IS a free lunch.

There is also the need for consistency. Creating autonomous beings entails an obligation to respect their right to choose what to believe and how to live. Even we don’t expect children to conform to all our rules and grow up as carbon copies of ourselves! If they turn out to be criminals we don’t come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t have had any children - if we are reasonable…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Only a lunatic would ignore the overwhelming evidence you have suggested! It would amount to committing intellectual suicide.

Believing God’s existence would be replaced by knowing that God exists. Knowing something is NOT an intellectual suicide. And knowing that God exists would not deprive us of our freedom to lead our life as wish. According the Bible, God intermingled with humans, and humans were still able to exercise their freedom. They could even commit the “original sin”.

Do you mean **all **our beliefs are **caused **by events beyond our control?

Our beliefs are the result of observation and mental processing of that information - most of which happens in the subconscious area of the brain. So, yes, they are beyond our control, just like we cannot control our digestive system or our immune system. Only a very small amount of information processing happens in the conscious area of the brain. Luckily, since our capacity to consciously process information is miniscule. Imagine if we had to consciously regulate our breathing, of our blood pressure. It would be a disaster.

Our level of technology certainly couldn’t create a perfect world nor is there any evidence that it ever will.

What is a “perfect” world? And our track record of creating improvements is pretty spectacular. The naysayers were always proven wrong - so far - so to have an optimistic view of the future is quite well established. But we are talking about God’s unlimited insight, intelligence and power, not ours. And I am not arguing about some undefined and undefinable perfection… I am talking about an intelligent world where there are no illnesses, no natural disasters and no human monsters - something like the mythological Garden of Eden - the existence of which you deny.

How could such limits be imposed without making it obvious that moral evil is being prevented? Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever misbehaved?

Of course not. Something is “strange” only if it deviates from the norm.

 

[Richca]

That is not perfectly clear, and none of the statements by the pontiffs are meant to be definitive.

The important points that must remain firm are as follows:

 

[Richca]

(continued)

originally posted by Imelahn
Both Pius XII was of the opinion that it was difficult to reconcile polygenism with the doctrine of Original Sin, however his opinion is actually quite nuanced:

 

[lmelahn]

First, a disclaimer: I fully support whatever the Magisteriums says about Original Sin.
However, I fear the sometimes, people read into Humani Generis firm rejection of polygenism that is not there.

The CCC#359 says “St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . the first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit…”

Your statement “The first men” implies polygenism, at least that is what I think you mean by it.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intention; I was intending to leave it open. I should have said “our first parents.”

After all, even according to the Bible, Eve fell first, and she was followed by Adam, although most interpreters (including St. Paul, as you point out) seem to think that it was Adam’s fall that “counted,” since he was the representative of the whole human race.

Catholics are not obliged to hold as a matter of faith or of divine revelation or even of natural truth the concept of polygenism which is a rather recent invention of modern science and particularly of evolutionary theory.

I agree.

In fact, the encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, expressly says that faithful catholics cannot hold such a view.

Here, I differ in my interpretation of the encyclial. In the passage I showed you the other day, Pius XII gives a very nuanced opinion. I realize that I forgot the give the citation for the paragraph: it is 37Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled (nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi) with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Notice that the prohibition here is not absolute. If there were a way to reconcile polygenism with the sources of revealed truth and the Magisterium, then it whould not be a problem.

Secondly, the statement “The first men” is a statement nowhere to be found as far as I’m aware of in the entire Holy Scripture, the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church or in any official documents of the church from ecumenical or particular councils or documents from the popes. If there is such a statement from the Church, I’d like to see it. Catholics are not required to hold firm to a statement “the first men” which obviously implies polygenism and which does not even exist in the Church.

After re-reading Humani Generis, I think I would modify my second statement to read

There was a Fall that consisted in some kind of grave sin, committed by a historical representative of the whole human race (whom we call Adam), by which our first parents lost the state of grace, and consequently the praeternatural gifts.

The point about “the first men” in your prior paragraph though is not a teaching of the Church. In fact, a person would have to stretch their imagination beyond reasonable limits in my view to hold that polygenism is implied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its doctrine concerning the first couple, Adam and Eve. The concept of polygenism is certainly going to have problems with Holy Scripture and the literal or what it appears to be the obvious sense of not a few passages not excluding Genesis itself down to St Paul such as “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death,… For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many.” (Romans 5: 12, 15). Before the invention of the concept of polygenism which probably resulted from Darwin’s evolutionary theory and thus is less than 200 years old, I think it is safe to say that monogenism is the obvious sense of the entire Tradition of the Church concerning the origin of mankind from an historical Adam and Eve.

I agree that a single historical person, Adam, must have been responsible for the Fall.

 

[lmelahn]

First, a disclaimer: I fully support whatever the Magisteriums says about Original Sin.
However, I fear the sometimes, people read into Humani Generis firm rejection of polygenism that is not there.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intention; I was intending to leave it open. I should have said “our first parents.”

After all, even according to the Bible, Eve fell first, and she was followed by Adam, although most interpreters (including St. Paul, as you point out) seem to think that it was Adam’s fall that “counted,” since he was the representative of the whole human race.

I agree.

Here, I differ in my interpretation of the encyclial. In the passage I showed you the other day, Pius XII gives a very nuanced opinion. I realize that I forgot the give the citation for the paragraph: it is Humani Generis 37:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled (nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi) with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Notice that the prohibition here is not absolute. If there were a way to reconcile polygenism with the sources of revealed truth and the Magisterium, then it whould not be a problem.

After re-reading Humani Generis, I think I would modify my second statement to read

There was a Fall that consisted in some kind of grave sin, committed by a historical representative of the whole human race (whom we call Adam), by which our first parents lost the state of grace, and consequently the praeternatural gifts.

I agree that a single historical person, Adam, must have been responsible for the Fall.

Sorry, I didn’t read your second message (which is why I repeated the quote to Humani Generis).

 

[lmelahn]

…]

I also hold that it is by no means apparent to me how such an opinion of polygenism can ever be considered an established truth or fact from science. The human spiritual soul is immaterial and we believe that it is immediately created by God in each human being, it does not have a material or physical cause. The human soul is beyond scientific discovery as we understand modern science and the means it uses as if it can be discovered or observed in anything material or physical and as if it can be shoveled from the dirt. Secondly, no modern scientist was around at the time of Adam and Eve to know for certain what actually took place. Really, only God knows for certain what was going on and Adam and Eve, the first two humans and first couple of the human race. But Holy Scripture is God’s word and He has told us through the inspired authors concerning the origins of the human race.

Perhaps not, but I am a little concerned that if scientists do find excellent evidence of polygenism, that it might cause unnecessary consternation to the faithful.

It seems to me that—like evolution itself—the theory of polygenism poses no threat to Catholic doctrine per se. (See my commentary of Paul VI’s allucution below.) Obviously, if you start denying the direct creation of the human soul by God, or use evolutionism as an excuse to deny the existence of God, then there is a problem.

Yes, it is listed in the footnote to #390 of the CCC, footnote #265. It is in the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In the Companion, it is titled Paul VI, allocution of 11, July 1966.

OK great! I found it online, but it is only in Italian: w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19660711_peccato-originale.html

Here is the relevant passage:

È evidente, perciò, che vi sembreranno inconciliabili con la genuina dottrina cattolica le spiegazioni che del peccato originale danno alcuni autori moderni, i quali, partendo dal presupposto, che non è stato dimostrato, del poligenismo, negano, più o meno chiaramente, che il peccato, donde è derivata tanta colluvie di mali nell’umanità, sia stato anzitutto la disobbedienza di Adamo «primo uomo», figura di quello futuro (Conc. Vat. II, Const. Gaudium e spes, n. 22; cfr. anche n. 13) commessa all’inizio della storia.

It is evident, therefore, that the explanations of original sin given by some modern authors—who, starting with the unproven presupposition of polygenism, deny that the sin, from which flows such a deluge of evils upon humanity, is primarily the disobedience committed at the beginning of history by Adam, the “first man” and the figure of the one to come *—would seem irreconcilible with genuine Catholic doctrine (my translation).

(Italian tends to be very wordy, as you can see…)

It seems to me that what Paul VI is cautioning against is not so much the polygenism as denying that sin results from the disobedience of Adam.

I guess my main point is, the important aspect of the doctrine on Original Sin is what it teaches about grace and its relationship with human nature. That is how the doctrine historically developed: it was first formulated fully by St. Augustine, because of the controversey surrounding Pelagianism.

Exactly how Original Sin arose historically is a secondary issue that admits of some flexibility.*

 

[tonyrey]

Only a lunatic would ignore the overwhelming evidence you have suggested! It would amount to committing intellectual suicide.

Our beliefs are the result of observation and mental processing of that information - most of which happens in the subconscious area of the brain. So, yes, they are beyond our control, just like we cannot control our digestive system or our immune system. Only a very small to consciously process information is miniscule. Imagine if we had to consciously regulate our breathing, of our blood pressure. It would be a disaster.

Are we biological computers incapable of original thought and moral responsibility?

Our level of technology certainly couldn’t create a perfect world nor is there any evidence that it ever will.

What is a “perfect” world? And our track record of creating improvements is pretty spectacular. The naysayers were always proven wrong - so far - so to have an optimistic view of the future is quite well established. But we are talking about God’s unlimited insight, intelligence and power, not ours. And I am not arguing about some undefined and undefinable perfection… I am talking about an intelligent world where there are no illnesses, no natural disasters and no human monsters - something like the mythological Garden of Eden - the existence of which you deny.

Our track record has succeeded in polluting the planet, endangering all life and creating horrific injustice.

How could such limits be imposed without making it obvious that moral evil is being prevented? Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever misbehaved?

Of course not. Something is “strange” only if it deviates from the norm.

So if the majority became evil we would accept unquestioningly as the norm?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Then why is everyone opposed to Big Brother monitoring all our behaviour?

Are you against being watched by God all the time? Too bad, because whether you like it or not, he is everywhere, in your bedroom always watching like a good “peeping Tom”. And judge you if you were not pious enough when you made love to your spouse. How can you stand this constant “supervision” is beyond me.

Are we biological computers incapable of original thought and moral responsibility?

These are not mutually exclusive. Read the “Andromeda Strain” by Michael Crichton. We are at least 95% biological computers.

Our track record has succeeded in polluting the planet, endangering all life and creating horrific injustice.

Yes, that, too. Along with alleviating a lot of pain and misery, which could have been eliminated by God, if only he cared. Too bad he does not.

So if the majority became evil we would accept unquestioningly as the norm?

No, not just the majority, everyone. If everyone would be evil, then to be evil would be considered normal. By you, too.

So, if all the moral evils would be prevented, no one would consider their absence to be noteworthy. And it would be so much nicer than this current arrangement.