Let's talk about Original Sin

[SteakNPotatoes]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the discussion of Original Sin begins with the following statement:

“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 seemed to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.”

1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 385​

As I read this, there are two sources of suffering, according to the Church: “the limitations proper to creatures”; and “moral evil” by which is meant Original Sin. These two sources are not evenly distributed. The statement appears to give more weight to the latter cause than it does to the former. Can I therefore assume that the position of the Catholic Church is that* “as creatures we are fated to suffer, though we suffer much more as a result of Original Sin”*?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi S&P, welcome to the forums.

I think if you read further along in that section of the CCC, and also the previous chapter on “Man” you will find that original sin is the source of suffering.

The portion you quoted above is focused on the state of creation post-fall. Creatures (i.e. that which does not contain within itself its own reason for being) are not fated to suffer. . . the CCC in that paragraph seems to be asking the question “Why does it seem like suffering is unavoidable? What is the reason?” and it goes on to answer: sin has marred creation.

What do you think?
VC

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

If, as you say, “Creatures… are not fated to suffer,” then can we agree that, prior to Original Sin no creatures suffered?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, it depends on what you mean by “suffer.” And what you mean by “creatures”. And what you mean by “fated”.

My response to you above was only to hint that you may be misreading that one paragraph of the CCC… . . but I have a feeling that you are using the socratic method.

VC

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Well, I need to keep things simple for my puny brain to comprehend, so yes, asking basic questions is a good way to go about it (that Socrates was a smart fellow, or maybe just slow like me).

In that spirit of simplicity, let’s back up, and focus only on the definition of “suffer”.

Can we agree that “suffer” in part means implicitly, trouble and hardship during life, and also explicitly, death?

 

[jimmy]

Well, I need to keep things simple for my puny brain to comprehend, so yes, asking basic questions is a good way to go about it (that Socrates was a smart fellow, or maybe just slow like me).

In that spirit of simplicity, let’s back up, and focus only on the definition of “suffer”.

Can we agree that “suffer” in part means implicitly, trouble and hardship during life, and also explicitly, death?

Someone may have suffered in a physical sense but not in a spiritual sense. They might have felt tired if they ran 20 miles. In that sense they could have suffered. But at the same time that suffering would not be as much of suffering as it would be of living to the glory of God. The other type of suffering is due to moral pitfalls. It is due to sin. There would be no suffering in this sense.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Verbum Caro, thank you for your response. This is all very interesting to me.

I’d like to amend my first statement so that we can find some common ground upon which to extend this discussion.

Would it be safe to say that Death is the ultimate result of Original Sin?

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Interesting point, Jimmy. You seem to be saying that physical suffering is part of God’s original creation, and that “spiritual suffering” is a result of Original Sin. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[VociMike]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the discussion of Original Sin begins with the following statement:

As I read this, there are two sources of suffering, according to the Church: “the limitations proper to creatures”; and “moral evil” by which is meant Original Sin.

I disagree with your assignment only of moral evil to Original Sin. The clear meaning of this passage to me, and I believe also the clear teaching of the Church, is that both moral corruption and physical corruption (“the limitations proper to creatures”) including death, are due to Original Sin.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Thank you, VociMike.

You seem to be in agreement with Verbum Caro who asserted that Original Sin is the “source of suffering” (I am equating your use of “corruption” with “suffering” for the purpose of keeping things on track, though I’m sure there are subtleties not being acknowledged - let’s ignore them for now). Although you and Jimmy seem to be of different minds on this point (see above).

I tend to agree that the Church’s position is that ALL suffering is the result of Original Sin, which seems to agree with (among others) Romans 8:19-21:

For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Now that we seem to be largely in agreement (except for Jimmy, who will, I hope, explain his thoughts further) that all of man’s suffering and death is the result of Original Sin, let’s move on to the next question.

It seems to me, in reading the Catechism and Scripture, that Original Sin not only affects man, but all of creation. As noted above, Paul makes this connection in Romans:

for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Romans 8:20-21

{As a side question, can I assume that “the one who subjected it” above refers to Adam, not God?}

The story in Genesis appears to indicate that all creation has been altered by God in response to Original Sin as well:

“Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken;
Genesis 3:17-19

And the Catechism states:

Harmony with creation is broken; visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”
Catechism ¶400

Am I correct in assuming that Church teaching is essentially that “all of creation suffers and dies as a direct result of Original Sin”?

 

[VociMike]

…Am I correct in assuming that Church teaching is essentially that “all of creation suffers and dies as a direct result of Original Sin”?

Yes, this is my understanding.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Yes, this is my understanding.

Now, I want to be clear: Is the Church teaching that “all of creation suffers and dies as a direct result of Original Sin” a dogmatic assertion, the denial of which is a heresy?

In the Catechism, one gets the impression that such may be the case:

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. Catechism 389

 

[VociMike]

Now, I want to be clear: Is the Church teaching that “all of creation suffers and dies as a direct result of Original Sin” a dogmatic assertion, the denial of which is a heresy?

In the Catechism, one gets the impression that such may be the case:

That is my understanding. I am not, however, the Magisterium.

It is obvious that you are leading up to something. I even have an inkling what it may be. When will it be revealed?

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

It is obvious that you are leading up to something. I even have an inkling what it may be. When will it be revealed?

Well, yeah, I have been leading up to something, but it’s actually not the something I was originally headed for. Sorry for the mystery, but it seemed more logical to proceed slowly, making sure there was agreement on all sides before putting forth my position.

Curiosity is killing me as to what you think I am leading up to. I hope I don’t disappoint you… Nevertheless, I suppose it’s time to put my cards on the table…

We have agreed that the Church’s teaching is that all creation (not just humankind) suffers and dies as a result of Original Sin.

The implication of all this is that prior to the* “primeval event - the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (Catechism, 390)*, suffering and death were unknown.

But if one accepts evolutionary theory, one must accept that death and (most probably) suffering occurred prior to the emergence of man. Indeed, if we are to accept the age of the earth as estimated by science, the existence of dinosaurs and all manner of life prior to the emergence of man, we must also accept that death and (most likely suffering, judging by T-rex teeth fossils) occurred long before man entered the fray.

Now most of us accept that the story in Genesis is related in figurative language, but Church teaching is clear that, though it may not have happened precisely as written, we are still referring to a real event, the consequences of which were the entrance of death into human history, and not just human, but all creation as well. So, how can one accept the Church’s teaching on Original Sin and still accept evolutionary theory? Despite what some may say, they appear completely at odds.

 

[VociMike]

Well, yeah, I have been leading up to something, but it’s actually not the something I was originally headed for. Sorry for the mystery, but it seemed more logical to proceed slowly, making sure there was agreement on all sides before putting forth my position.

Curiosity is killing me as to what you think I am leading up to. I hope I don’t disappoint you… Nevertheless, I suppose it’s time to put my cards on the table…

We have agreed that the Church’s teaching is that all creation (not just humankind) suffers and dies as a result of Original Sin.

The implication of all this is that prior to the* “primeval event - the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (Catechism, 390)*, suffering and death were unknown.

But if one accepts evolutionary theory, one must accept that death and (most probably) suffering occurred prior to the emergence of man. Indeed, if we are to accept the age of the earth as estimated by science, the existence of dinosaurs and all manner of life prior to the emergence of man, we must also accept that death and (most likely suffering, judging by T-rex teeth fossils) occurred long before man entered the fray.

Now most of us accept that the story in Genesis is related in figurative language, but Church teaching is clear that, though it may not have happened precisely as written, we are still referring to a real event, the consequences of which were the entrance of death into human history, and not just human, but all creation as well. So, how can one accept the Church’s teaching on Original Sin and still accept evolutionary theory? Despite what some may say, they appear completely at odds.

Yes, your question (objection) is exactly what I thought you might be driving at. And it’s a perfectly good objection. And all I know is that there has been much speculation down the ages over the matter.

The issue, BTW, does not even hinge on evolution, but only on the evidence that creatures suffered and died before mankind had come into being, through whatever mechanism.

Myself, I don’t believe that God has given us fossil evidence that lies, nor do I believe that God has given us scripture that lies, or a Church that lies. So, that requires that this seeming paradox be resolved. I have no answer other than to say that God is not bound by cause and effect, nor by time and space. The Eucharist is clear testimony to this unboundedness. Mankind, through Adam and Eve, chose a world in which God’s presence was hidden. The question you raise is only one aspect of God granting their wish.

I hope you get some better answers.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Thank you, VociMike.

I appreciate your candor. I’m not sure any more can be said for my part, and I’d appreciate hearing from others.

 

[adrift]

Unfortunetly, I am coming late to this thread.

I would not have agreed that physical death came through Original Sin nor would I have agreed that animals did not die before sin entered the world. I do not believe that this is the position of the Chruch. After all, it is permissible to believe in evolution. Such being the case, there would have been death of many animals in the process. The Church only requires the belief that God directly infused the soul into one man and woman who are the parents of all human kind. That these parents disobeyed God bringing the seperation of mankind from God and that Jesus came to heal that seperation. There are many results of Original Sin. I wish I could go into it more but it is late and I am being called away.

 

[Chris_W]

Interesting. I wonder if it wold be possible to perhaps somewhat combine Jimmy’s description with the others and allow for both to be correct:
Sin can be defined as that which is contrary to the will of God. Is it possible that the death described in the Bible might refer to the deaths that are contrary to God’s plan? For example, annual flowers seem by design to live for a season and then die. There is nothing untimely about it so far as I can tell. However, if a draught occurs the annual might die sooner than it was designed to die, thus being attributable to the corruption resulting from original sin.

Does that make sense? Man was designed for immortality so death of any kind is contrary to God’s plan and the result of OS. But if God designed an annual flower to live and die in a certain natural way, it’s death might very weel be in accord with God’s plan. In the Garden of Eden I would say that nothing died sooner than God intended. But a designed death of plants and animals might have occurred. When kicked out of the Garden though, everything went wrong. The weather is undependable, weeds croud out good crops, a cow dies at a certain number of years so that man must earn another, etc.

I guess I’m suggesting that “death” might be referring to an “undesigned end”, so to speak rather than an all inclusive death of every kind.

Just a thought.*

 

[Nullasalus]

Hey everyone. I wanted to share an interesting resource on this kind of thing. It seems to be a Catholic site with regards ti theology and science:

ctns.org/encyclopaedia.html

Of note, under ‘Man, origin, and nature’:

In the encyclical letter Humani generis , the Catholic Magisterium has partially clarified the question debated by stating that «it is no way apparent how the rejection of monogenism can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth propose with regard to original sin», which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through the generations, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (cf. DH 3897; SACRED SCRIPTURE , V.3). But, according to someone, what today “is no way apparent how to reconcile” might be reconciled in the future. J. De Fraine believes that the refusal of poligenism made by the Catholic Church should not be considered as conclusive (see Adam et son lignage , 1968). In H. Haag’s opinion, a distinction is due between the historical authenticity of the details contained in the biblical account and the historical authenticity of the sudden occurrence of the sin and its influence on human life (cf. Biblische Schöpfungslehre und kirchliche Erbsündenlehre , 1970). At the same time, we must remember that, from a scientific point of view, the assumption of monogenism should not be definitely excluded and that several researchers accept the possibility of a monogenetic origin of the human body.

Which puzzles me, as some people claim that polygenism is absolutey verboten by Catholic teaching. But, perhaps it’s not? Ah well, hard to tell in a way.