Looking for an in-depth explanation of CCC389 (original sin)

[OneSheep]

Hi Folks,

We’ve run across this section often on the forum, and it dawned on me that an assertion expressed within is neither explained or backed up with evidence. Therefore, it would be very interesting to me for someone to provide some backing for this section, someone who is willing to make some effort to scrutinize and provide opinions, resources, etc.

Here is the section:

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

It is the second sentence that needs the most explanation, the first is more or less supported in CCC388.

What is it about “tampering with the revelation of original sin” that could “undermine the mystery of Christ”?

Note: this is not meant to be a challenge, but an investigation.

 

[Stephen_says]

First we need to make sure we understand the “Mystery of Christ”

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged: but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

So if we were to “tamper” with the revelation of original sin, i.e., if we assert there is no original sin, why would Jesus have come to free us from something that didn’t exist?

 

[fhansen]

Jesus came to not only overcome our basic ignorance about God (reestablishing “the knowledge of God”) but also to confront and defeat something more insidious and deadly, the state that Adam introduced which involved a “lack of trust in His goodness” (CCC397), and preference for ourselves over God (CCC398) (related to the preference for darkness over light mentioned in post #2) which together are part and parcel of the “distorted image” of God (CCC399) that man conceived at the Fall and which persists in us to this day. Consciously or not, God is seen as pettily human in His wrathfulness and vengeance, “jealous of His prerogatives” (also CCC399), as if He were on our level, in competition with us. We cannot or in any case do not see Him as He is, let alone value Him as He deserves, and this constitutes a breach or lack of communion that is fatal to us-and is responsible for the unreasonable and harmful behavior (sin) we witness daily in our world and may in one way or another participate in.

Man was made for communion with God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’ (John 15:5) but “with Whom all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). Pride is a subtle killer; it opposes God by its nature; it taints us all to some degree, and so God, whose own nature is gentle and humble, opposes it, for our sake. His passion and death on the cross exude this opposition, humble self-sacrificial love pour forth from it in infinite volumes, both demonstrating and effecting salvation for those who finally want to come out of the darkness and into the light.

 

[o_mlly]

…
The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

It is the second sentence that needs the most explanation, the first is more or less supported in CCC388.

What is it about “tampering with the revelation of original sin” that could “undermine the mystery of Christ”?

Note: this is not meant to be a challenge, but an investigation.

The multiple theologies underpinning a soteriology are interdependent and, to remain systematic, must cohere. To be respected, a speculative theology of salvation, indeed, must address simultaneously and coherently our sizeable deposit of faith.

When Christians talk about the mystery of salvation, we tend, as one always does about mystery, to talk around it. But our subheadings are always the same: the triune God; the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; grace, sin, original sin and justification; faith, hope, and charity.

A Christian theology of salvation requires a systematic expression of human nature, the human condition, the nature of grace, the nature of Christ, and the Trinity, just to name a few. This is a daunting task. If we add to this task of expressing a coherent theology of multiple mysteries, a simultaneous addressing of the current tensions in the conflicting philosophies of how humans come to know things in the first place (scholasticism/metaphysics, modernity/rationalism, post-modernity/existentialism), then muddling becomes a real possibility.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Stephen,

First we need to make sure we understand the “Mystery of Christ”

Thank you, that is a great starting point.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Yes, “perish”. That probably needs some investigating. “Perish” can mean many things. What does it mean in context?

17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Yes, and I think we can agree that when we look upon Jesus, we look upon the Father. So the Father, neither, judges us. In fact, we are all called to forgive and be merciful and refrain from judging. We are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”, and that is a compassionate perfection, a nonjudgmental, forgiving perfection.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged: but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is my understanding that “judged” in context means “condemned”. Given that God does not judge us, condemnation must mean something different. For example, an addict is condemned to ruin unless he is saved, that is the most blatant example of condemnation. This makes sense in terms of “condemnation” being enslaved by our nature, like trying to gain freedom and happiness by being rich.

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

This assertion is the one that may need the most scrutiny. People love the light when they see it. Love within seeks itself. However, yes, people are enslaved by their nature.

So if we were to “tamper” with the revelation of original sin, i.e., if we assert there is no original sin, why would Jesus have come to free us from something that didn’t exist?

Very good point, and that makes sense. For example, one could say that a person is enslaved by the circumstances of life itself, say one is born with a debilitating illness that causes great suffering, or a person who simply has bad luck with keeping a job. If their turn to Jesus gives them hope, there is a salvation in that hope. Does such ill fate, and such salvation have something to do with OS? Perhaps, yes. If suffering itself is seen as part of the human condition, and one can be surely enslaved by despair, which is part of our nature, then yes, the reasoning can be extended to include this example.

But we can see that the human does not love despair, so that part of it need some explanation. This is not “men loving darkness”. Come to think of it, does man ever love darkness? Perhaps, but only if the darkness appears to be either the only way to look, or if the darkness looks like light.

Is “original sin” a term that means “human nature”? If so, people are all over the board in terms of the characterization of our nature. If the doctrine of OS proclaims/implies that our nature is a punishment and is generally evil, then this is a negative characterization. If, on the other hand, a person observes that our nature is functional and helps us to survive, then this is a positive characterization.

Does “tampering” include the observation that people indeed love the light when they know it and see it? Does “tampering” include seeing our human nature as something generally positive rather than negative?

Sorry, so many questions, and all over the place. Feel free to choose just one, I am grateful.

 

[OneSheep]

Jesus came to not only overcome our basic ignorance about God (reestablishing “the knowledge of God”) but also to confront and defeat something more insidious and deadly, the state that Adam introduced which involved a “lack of trust in His goodness” (CCC397), and preference for ourselves over God (CCC398) (related to the preference for darkness over light mentioned in post #2) which together are part and parcel of the “distorted image” of God (CCC399) that man conceived at the Fall and which persists in us to this day. Consciously or not, God is seen as pettily human in His wrathfulness and vengeance, “jealous of His prerogatives” (also CCC399), as if He were on our level, in competition with us. We cannot or in any case do not see Him as He is, let alone value Him as He deserves, and this constitutes a breach or lack of communion that is fatal to us-and is responsible for the unreasonable and harmful behavior (sin) we witness daily in our world and may in one way or another participate in.

Man was made for communion with God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’ (John 15:5) but “with Whom all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). Pride is a subtle killer; it opposes God by its nature; it taints us all to some degree, and so God, whose own nature is gentle and humble, opposes it, for our sake. His passion and death on the cross exude this opposition, humble self-sacrificial love pour forth from it in infinite volumes, both demonstrating and effecting salvation for those who finally want to come out of the darkness and into the light.

Good Morning fhansen,

Do people naturally oppose God? This may go to the heart of the matter. What evidence do we have of this?

 

[OneSheep]

The multiple theologies underpinning a soteriology are interdependent and, to remain systematic, must cohere. To be respected, a speculative theology of salvation, indeed, must address simultaneously and coherently our sizeable deposit of faith.

When Christians talk about the mystery of salvation, we tend, as one always does about mystery, to talk around it. But our subheadings are always the same: the triune God; the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; grace, sin, original sin and justification; faith, hope, and charity.

A Christian theology of salvation requires a systematic expression of human nature, the human condition, the nature of grace, the nature of Christ, and the Trinity, just to name a few. This is a daunting task. If we add to this task of expressing a coherent theology of multiple mysteries, a simultaneous addressing of the current tensions in the conflicting philosophies of how humans come to know things in the first place (scholasticism/metaphysics, modernity/rationalism, post-modernity/existentialism), then muddling becomes a real possibility.

Hi O milly,

So what does it mean, then, to “tamper with the Revelation of original sin”? For example, would a person have to see our nature as generally negative or as a punishment? Or, could “Original sin” simply describe the observation that all people are capable of doing evil, that we have an inherited condition without the using a negative characterization?

Thanks for weighing in, I truly value your comments (as I do the others who have posted).

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning Stephen,

Thank you, that is a great starting point.

Yes, “perish”. That probably needs some investigating. “Perish” can mean many things. What does it mean in context?

Yes, and I think we can agree that when we look upon Jesus, we look upon the Father. So the Father, neither, judges us. In fact, we are all called to forgive and be merciful and refrain from judging. We are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”, and that is a compassionate perfection, a nonjudgmental, forgiving perfection.

It is my understanding that “judged” in context means “condemned”. Given that God does not judge us, condemnation must mean something different. For example, an addict is condemned to ruin unless he is saved, that is the most blatant example of condemnation. This makes sense in terms of “condemnation” being enslaved by our nature, like trying to gain freedom and happiness by being rich.

This assertion is the one that may need the most scrutiny. People love the light when they see it. Love within seeks itself. However, yes, people are enslaved by their nature.

Very good point, and that makes sense. For example, one could say that a person is enslaved by the circumstances of life itself, say one is born with a debilitating illness that causes great suffering, or a person who simply has bad luck with keeping a job. If their turn to Jesus gives them hope, there is a salvation in that hope. Does such ill fate, and such salvation have something to do with OS? Perhaps, yes. If suffering itself is seen as part of the human condition, and one can be surely enslaved by despair, which is part of our nature, then yes, the reasoning can be extended to include this example.

But we can see that the human does not love despair, so that part of it need some explanation. This is not “men loving darkness”. Come to think of it, does man ever love darkness? Perhaps, but only if the darkness appears to be either the only way to look, or if the darkness looks like light.

Is “original sin” a term that means “human nature”? If so, people are all over the board in terms of the characterization of our nature. If the doctrine of OS proclaims/implies that our nature is a punishment and is generally evil, then this is a negative characterization. If, on the other hand, a person observes that our nature is functional and helps us to survive, then this is a positive characterization.

Does “tampering” include the observation that people indeed love the light when they know it and see it? Does “tampering” include seeing our human nature as something generally positive rather than negative?

Sorry, so many questions, and all over the place. Feel free to choose just one, I am grateful.

Human nature didn’t change with the Fall; Adam didn’t adopt and we don’t inherit a “sin nature” as some Protestant theologies put it. Rather, our nature remains the same but now “disadvantaged” in a sense as we’re wounded by virtue of distance from God, an unjust and unnatural state for man.Our own willingness or unwillingness to depart from this state is what determines our personal state of justice, and fortunately God is patient in helping us, in reconciling us, in drawing us into the light.

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning fhansen,

Do people naturally oppose God? This may go to the heart of the matter. What evidence do we have of this?

Not necessarily consciously; our opposition is revealed primarily by how well or poorly we love our neighbor, how we treat “the least of these”, how well we choose and orient ourselves towards love in general.

 

[OneSheep]

Human nature didn’t change with the Fall; Adam didn’t adopt and we don’t inherit a “sin nature” as some Protestant theologies put it. Rather, our nature remains the same but now “disadvantaged” in a sense as we’re wounded by virtue of distance from God, an unjust and unnatural state for man.Our own willingness or unwillingness to depart from this state is what determines our personal state of justice, and fortunately God is patient in helping us, in reconciling us, in drawing us into the light.

I’m not sure that “sin nature” is so restricted to Protestant theologies. For example, “pride” is described as a negative part of our nature. If pride is shown as a positive aspect of our nature, is that “tampering with the Revelation of Original sin”? For example, people can still be slaves to a positive thing. In that case, Jesus saves someone by showing him a new discipline, a discipline to love, showing him a path to freedom from slavery.

Yes, God draws us into the light with patience because we are slow on the uptake. We are very ignorant and unaware. Is the definition of Original Sin as Original unawareness or Original ignorance a “tampering”? In this definition, a person is saved from his ignorance by Revelation Himself, showing him that God is our Abba, showing him how to love and forgive.

Still thinking aloud here; if the “Mystery of Christ” includes this assertion (thanks to Stephen):

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

The assertion that “men love darkness” may be an expression of a “sinful nature”, and any such “tampering” I was asking about above may be undermining the idea of a sinful nature.

In that case, undermining the “Mystery” does not necessarily mean an undermining of faith, salvation, communion, or anything else. It merely undermines the idea of a “sinful nature” or that “men love darkness” which are described as part of the “Mystery”.

Did you follow me on that, or should I clarify?

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure that “sin nature” is so restricted to Protestant theologies. For example, “pride” is described as a negative part of our nature. If pride is shown as a positive aspect of our nature, is that “tampering with the Revelation of Original sin”? For example, people can still be slaves to a positive thing. In that case, Jesus saves someone by showing him a new discipline, a discipline to love, showing him a path to freedom from slavery.

Yes, God draws us into the light with patience because we are slow on the uptake. We are very ignorant and unaware. Is the definition of Original Sin as Original unawareness or Original ignorance a “tampering”? In this definition, a person is saved from his ignorance by Revelation Himself, showing him that God is our Abba, showing him how to love and forgive.

Still thinking aloud here; if the “Mystery of Christ” includes this assertion (thanks to Stephen):

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

The assertion that “men love darkness” may be an expression of a “sinful nature”, and any such “tampering” I was asking about above may be undermining the idea of a sinful nature.

In that case, undermining the “Mystery” does not necessarily mean an undermining of faith, salvation, communion, or anything else. It merely undermines the idea of a “sinful nature” or that “men love darkness” which are described as part of the “Mystery”.

Did you follow me on that, or should I clarify?

Well, “sin nature” is used to speak of a complete change, a new nature being assumed rather than something simply being missing that was previously there. This “sin nature” idea leads to the concept of “total depravity” due to this new nature being totally opposed to God. It means that man is incapable in any way of responding to God; he’s God’s enemy. In Catholicism man is wounded, corrupted, but only in terms of lacking the vital life that communion with his God provides. He may participate in Adam’s rebellion in one way or another but his will isn’t completely extinguished, nor is the image of God in him completely destroyed; he’s just lost, in need of being found, enlightened, and new life imparted again, not without his cooperation. Adam freely fell; we must freely rise again, with the help of grace.

The main issue, as I see it, is that man must remain accountable in some manner or another; his will is expected to align itself with God’s; we’re under obligation to do the right thing; we’re not just mindless automatons that merely react and respond to pleasurable or otherwise desirable impulses. Remove this obligation, this moral accountability, from man and you go far in removing his dignity.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure that “sin nature” is so restricted to Protestant theologies. For example, “pride” is described as a negative part of our nature. If pride is shown as a positive aspect of our nature, is that “tampering with the Revelation of Original sin”?

All evil, according to the Church, is a twisting or corrupting of something good. So pride, with all the harm it can cause, is an exaltation of the self above our due worth. It’s to believe a falsehood about ourselves, really. It’s to take a good, self-love, and turn it into “inordinate self-love” as Aquinas put it. To think more highly of oneself than the truth would allow. This is an anomaly; other aspects of creation don’t do this, they can’t of course; animals stay within their bounds while man is capable of excess.

Ironically while pride can give us the rush of a sense of extreme self-worth, it also sets the stage for the opposite, feelings of self-hatred and inferiority by setting our standards too high. Both are the result of wanting to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” CCC398. IOW, pride can make us a real pia for everyone else, and not necessarily just by the most narcissistic types; we all suffer from an excess IMO, to the extent we can get away with it.

 

[fhansen]

I think we have to start with the understanding that sin is a disorder, unnatural, not “meant to be”. As much as we may be able to identify with the committing of white lies at times and/or understand the motivation behind them, and as much as we may take those and other, worse sins, for granted, we should start with acknowledging that they are, indeed, sin, acts which should presumably be both unnecessary and unheard from the perspective of the authentically innocent. That doesn’t mean they’re unforgivable, as we know, only that they would require action, atonement, because they’re already so outside of the natural order. A line first has to be crossed in order for any sin to occur.

If we start from this viewpoint, that any and all sin is completely out of step with reality in some manner, then it becomes a more serious kind of phenomenon, a different sort of animal. How does one make up for- or fix-a problem that means they are cut off/divided in some manner from their very own selves? That’s what the church teaches, in fact, that OS divides man from God, from himself, from other men, and from creation. I mean, trying to be obedient or “good” can’t resolve the problem. Nor can multiple atoning sacrifices to God. Only the Creator can fix His broken creation-and, as it turns out, the Creator is the fix for His broken creation. This is why we’re called to communion. Adam broke communion, a union which apparently turned out to be a bit fragile to begin with when push came to shove. We’re here to be reconciled with God, to re-enter communion, this time with a more enlightened and firmly resolved will.

 

[o_mlly]

Hi O milly,

So what does it mean, then, to “tamper with the Revelation of original sin”? For example, would a person have to see our nature as generally negative or as a punishment? Or, could “Original sin” simply describe the observation that all people are capable of doing evil, that we have an inherited condition without the using a negative characterization?

Thanks for weighing in, I truly value your comments (as I do the others who have posted).

When presented with a moral decision, a decision that has good or bad outcomes, how free are we to choose? There are three possibilities and three theologies. In the presence of a decision to do good or bad, human are 1) free to choose, neither being influenced by grace or evil (Pelagius), 2) not free, but propelled to evil (Augustine), and 3) not free, but overpowered by grace (Rahner).

In summarizing St. Augustine’s response to Pelagius’ doctrine, the late Fr. Stephen Duffy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Loyola University, writes that humans freely choose evil: “Human beings do not ever enjoy a condition of pure indifference in the exercise of freedom. Rather the corruption of human nature by sin entails a predisposition to evil, a bias toward it, which precedes and forms choice."

Rahner argues that the indwelling grace inherent in our nature is the stronger force. Dr. Ludwig, Director, Interim Director of the Sophia Center, writes, “For Rahner, original sin is a reality, but . . . it is never equal to the lure of transcendence . . . Original grace is more powerful.” The theologies are in apparent contradiction. Rahner would have us struggle to sin, whereas Augustine has us struggle to be good. Pelagius says it is an even bet. Augustine’s theology prevails.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, “sin nature” is used to speak of a complete change, a new nature being assumed rather than something simply being missing that was previously there. This “sin nature” idea leads to the concept of “total depravity” due to this new nature being totally opposed to God. It means that man is incapable in any way of responding to God; he’s God’s enemy. In Catholicism man is wounded, corrupted, but only in terms of lacking the vital life that communion with his God provides. He may participate in Adam’s rebellion in one way or another but his will isn’t completely extinguished, nor is the image of God in him completely destroyed; he’s just lost, in need of being found, enlightened, and new life imparted again, not without his cooperation. Adam freely fell; we must freely rise again, with the help of grace.

The main issue, as I see it, is that man must remain accountable in some manner or another; his will is expected to align itself with God’s; we’re under obligation to do the right thing; we’re not just mindless automatons that merely react and respond to pleasurable or otherwise desirable impulses. Remove this obligation, this moral accountability, from man and you go far in removing his dignity.

Yes, people are accountable for acting based on what they know, but that “lack of knowing” is part of what was “lost” if there ever was a such a loss. This brings us to man being accountable for learning what he does not know, but learning and knowing involves much more than knowing a list of rules.

So, let’s say OS involves “something missing that was previously there”, and the question is asked why God would remove something that enhances humanity’s ability to avoid sin. Let’s say answer given is that God never took anything away, that “Original Blessing” (state before the fall) is a metaphor for our own early childhood, a time that we see ourselves as innocent, before the imposition (by our physiology) of increased desire for status, territory, sex, etc. and “the fall” represents the introduction of desire for autonomy (which comes as we are in our teens, more or less) and that God’s “punishment” of us, the guilt after the fall (Original sin), is a metaphor for our own inner feelings for the “loss of innocence”. In other words, “Original Sin” is newly examined as more to do with how man sees himself over the time of individual growth rather than what God does to punish his own creation.

This way of looking at Original Sin (I just created it as I wrote, BTW,I did not borrow this) may conflict with the idea that “man loves darkness”, but maybe not. Is it a “tampering”?

 

[OneSheep]

All evil, according to the Church, is a twisting or corrupting of something good. So pride, with all the harm it can cause, is an exaltation of the self above our due worth. It’s to believe a falsehood about ourselves, really. It’s to take a good, self-love, and turn it into “inordinate self-love” as Aquinas put it. To think more highly of oneself than the truth would allow. This is an anomaly; other aspects of creation don’t do this, they can’t of course; animals stay within their bounds while man is capable of excess.

Ironically while pride can give us the rush of a sense of extreme self-worth, it also sets the stage for the opposite, feelings of self-hatred and inferiority by setting our standards too high. Both are the result of wanting to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” CCC398. IOW, pride can make us a real pia for everyone else, and not necessarily just by the most narcissistic types; we all suffer from an excess IMO, to the extent we can get away with it.

So, as per Aquinas, saying that “pride” in itself is a positive is not “tampering with the Revelation of OS”. In that case, “Original Sin” has nothing to do with our nature, but the choices people make, and since choices are not inherited but are made by individuals, it may confuse the intent of the doctrine in the first place, that we are prone in some way toward making bad choices.

We all have the capacity to make bad choices, and if it is explained that such capacity has to do with our own lack of awareness, does that explanation tamper with the Revelation of Original Sin enough to “undermine the mystery of Christ”?

 

[fhansen]

So, as per Aquinas, saying that “pride” in itself is a positive is not “tampering with the Revelation of OS”. In that case, “Original Sin” has nothing to do with our nature, but the choices people make, and since choices are not inherited but are made by individuals, it may confuse the intent of the doctrine in the first place, that we are prone in some way toward making bad choices.

We all have the capacity to make bad choices, and if it is explained that such capacity has to do with our own lack of awareness, does that explanation tamper with the Revelation of Original Sin enough to “undermine the mystery of Christ”?

But according to Aquinas self-love is good, while inordinate self-love is not good; it’s a perversion of a good and therefore evil, disordered. Evil has no other source than good to begin with but that doesn’t make it less evil. And now we get to observe all the ugly evil done in this world- in the name of “ME” or “US”.

That, IMO, is what the knowledge of good and evil entailed BTW; evil was unknown-unexperienced-in Eden prior to the Fall, prior to eating the fruit of the tree of that name.

Anyway, once God’s voice is ignored or no longer heeded then pride has gained ruler-ship; self-righteousness as opposed to “God-righteousness” reigns, and we’re here to learn of the foolishness of a such a world. This is why humility holds center-stage in the gospel.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi O milly,

So what does it mean, then, to “tamper with the Revelation of original sin”? For example, would a person have to see our nature as generally negative or as a punishment? Or, could “Original sin” simply describe the observation that all people are capable of doing evil, that we have an inherited condition without the using a negative characterization?

Thanks for weighing in, I truly value your comments (as I do the others who have posted).

When presented with a moral decision, a decision that has good or bad outcomes, how free are we to choose? There are three possibilities and three theologies. In the presence of a decision to do good or bad, human are 1) free to choose, neither being influenced by grace or evil (Pelagius), 2) not free, but propelled to evil (Augustine), and 3) not free, but overpowered by grace (Rahner).

In summarizing St. Augustine’s response to Pelagius’ doctrine, the late Fr. Stephen Duffy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Loyola University, writes that humans freely choose evil: “Human beings do not ever enjoy a condition of pure indifference in the exercise of freedom. Rather the corruption of human nature by sin entails a predisposition to evil, a bias toward it, which precedes and forms choice."

I have no reason to contest Fr. Duffy’s assessment of St. Augustine. I love St. Augustine, as he wrote some things that I can relate to more than any other saint. All I have read of St. Augustine in any depth is his Confessions, and he goes from one extreme to the other on human nature depending on what aspect of himself, what part of his own history he is currently addressing.

So, rather than use an ad hominem to discredit anything that Augustine wrote, we can conclude that when we do not forgive something from our past, we see ourselves as a negative in some way. That “seeing” is so real that it cannot be discredited as part of the human experience, not can we omit addressing (even incorporating) the negative POV as a reality without disorienting many faithful who are still working through inner reconciliation. In that light, what I am seeing is that while I prefer Rahner’s approach today (I did not always), I see the importance of both anthropologies.

Rahner argues that the indwelling grace inherent in our nature is the stronger force. Dr. Ludwig, Director, Interim Director of the Sophia Center, writes, “For Rahner, original sin is a reality, but . . . it is never equal to the lure of transcendence . . . Original grace is more powerful.” The theologies are in apparent contradiction. Rahner would have us struggle to sin, whereas Augustine has us struggle to be good. Pelagius says it is an even bet. Augustine’s theology prevails.

Well, I can see a means of reconciling all those theologies. Pelagius had an emphasis on personal responsibility, which has its merit, but the idea that we are a “clean slate” is contrary to fact and reason. Augustine presents the more condemning approach, and I addressed that above, and I have not read enough of Rahner to comment, but it makes no sense that we “struggle to sin”. It is more like we all have the capacity to sin because we are all unaware; I agree that indwelling grace is the prominent force.

Indeed, to say that there is a “force” in the human opposite grace is presenting some aspect of human nature with a negative characterization and promotes an inner dualism. This goes back to my question to you:

Could “Original sin” simply describe the observation that all people are capable of doing evil, that we have an inherited condition without using a negative characterization?

If one sees that the only underlying “force” in the universe is that of grace, is that a “tampering”?

For example, if one sees in the development of the human a movement from disorder to order, where disorder is not an “evil”, but merely a lack of awareness, of neutral value, does this undermine the mystery of Christ?

Perhaps there needs to be made a distinction between “undermining a mystery” and “undermining faith”.

Thanks! I appreciate any response, no need to address it all.

 

[po18guy]

It is good to begin with a definition of terms. From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

ORIGINAL SIN. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

And, a more in-depth article at NewAdvent.

Basically, if you tamper with the concept of original sin, you also tamper with the need for Christ to take human flesh for our redemption. This places the foundation of the faith at risk, and is a door which must be left closed.

 

[goout]

It is good to begin with a definition of terms. From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

And the word “nature”.
I’m not a philosopher, so…I’m not going there.

OP, what do want out of the word “nature”?
That’s key.