V
Vico
Guest
She fell to pride. Such is the case also with the angels. Being good from the start does not mean one cannot sin, which would imply a lack of free will. Adam and Eve were not inclined to do evil.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
And yet they did. If pride is inordinate, where did it come from?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Arguably, the author(s) of Genesis 2-3 did not intend to depict some kind of omniscient superhuman, and God creates creatures from His own goodness today just as He always has, rather than the dim view that God creates something of lower value or capacity today (having an inclination to sin) . Being good from the start does not mean one cannot sin.
(Note: I am finding it fruitful to define “inclination” on this matter, and “lean towards” seems to be the best description).
If Adam and Eve had the same inclinations as we do, which is foundationally to do good, to do what is best (to do what benefits), then their own God-given desire for power may have blinded them of the importance of God’s command, just as desire for power (and autonomy) continue to cause today’s people to lose focus on what is right or merciful.
It can be proven in that the desire for power (and the capacity for the blindness when one is caught up in any strong desire), are part of the good nature intended by our Father. The wild-card in the whole picture is that we are born essentially ignorant, which is certainly “original”. Revelation directly addresses that ignorance.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Vico,
Do you see, instead, the simplicity of the Jewish convert’s monotheistic view? In his view satan, rather than being a power opposed to God, is merely a challenger meant to test man, working in union with God’s will. So if the tenets of os require this man to see satan as a separate power opposed to God, and if he were to embrace the requirement, his own view of the universe moves to one that is dualistic. If a human being does not know the limit of a power, then that power is phenomenologically infinite. An infinite power is a god.
The Jewish convert I described is inclined to do a bit of tampering.
What is the definition of “inclination”? If inclination means “lean towards”, then I don’t know how it can be reasonably explained that an “inclination to sin” presents anything other than a dim view. If a dim view of mankind is part of “revelation” itself, then “Good News” is already compromised. The Jewish convert has always found truth in the approach to seeing mankind as essentially good, created by a beneficent God.
The problem with the above for the Jewish convert is that if God creates a creature good, then the creature intends the good. If a creature intends the good, any self-creation involves seeking or creating what is good. If any being can self-create (which, arguably, it cannot) then it would be to create that which it sees as good. Since the devil is defined as not good, then the devil himself is misguided, believing an untruth, and therefore ignorant. Then, we have God creating a heavenly power who is ignorant, and allowed to alter the history of mankind in ignorance.
Do you see, instead, the simplicity of the Jewish convert’s monotheistic view? In his view satan, rather than being a power opposed to God, is merely a challenger meant to test man, working in union with God’s will. So if the tenets of os require this man to see satan as a separate power opposed to God, and if he were to embrace the requirement, his own view of the universe moves to one that is dualistic. If a human being does not know the limit of a power, then that power is phenomenologically infinite. An infinite power is a god.
The Jewish convert I described is inclined to do a bit of tampering.
O
OneSheep
Guest
If I remember right, Aquinas did not describe pride itself (nor any of the passions) as inordinate. Rather, he described sin as coming from “inordinate pride”.
So in my mind inordinate pride comes from a lack of awareness (ignorance) or from blindness. The person wants what is good, but is not graced with the awareness to know what is ultimately good. Revelation and the Church as its vehicle continue to show us the Good News, what is ultimately Good.
O
OneSheep
Guest
So then we have God creating a man that in a primitive state can still be deceived, so the work of Aquinas in this case is self-contradictory IMO.
If she acquiesced to the love of her own power, she did so in ignorance or blindness, for all of one’s own power comes from God Himself. To think that her own power has any standing on its own, not subject to a Higher power, is mere ignorance. Yes, God gives us the freedom to choose, but the ability to choose in itself comes from our Loving God, as all life emanates from Him.
Arguably, if we take the story literally, Eve may have become blind to the importance of the warning against eating the fruit because she was caught up in the desire to eat of it. This literal reading makes the first couple just as human as the rest of us, though, which conflicts with aspects of os.
Therefore, a bit of tampering on the doctrine of original sin would serve to make Adam and Eve themselves into human beings that the ordinary human can relate to, making the story itself more relevant and meaningful. The lesson learned is that we are capable of being deceived by our own passions to the degree that we can even make choices against the threat of death, against the conscience itself.
V
Vico
Guest
The inclination to sin is overcome with the gift of sanctifying grace in the baptized and confirmed. There is still concupiscence but it can be overcome for the entire life with sanctifying grace to the degree of no mortal sin.Good Morning Vico,
What is the definition of “inclination”? If inclination means “lean towards”, then I don’t know how it can be reasonably explained that an “inclination to sin” presents anything other than a dim view. If a dim view of mankind is part of “revelation” itself, then “Good News” is already compromised. The Jewish convert has always found truth in the approach to seeing mankind as essentially good, created by a beneficent God.
The problem with the above for the Jewish convert is that if God creates a creature good, then the creature intends the good. If a creature intends the good, any self-creation involves seeking or creating what is good. If any being can self-create (which, arguably, it cannot) then it would be to create that which it sees as good. Since the devil is defined as not good, then the devil himself is misguided, believing an untruth, and therefore ignorant. Then, we have God creating a heavenly power who is ignorant, and allowed to alter the history of mankind in ignorance.
Do you see, instead, the simplicity of the Jewish convert’s monotheistic view? In his view satan, rather than being a power opposed to God, is merely a challenger meant to test man, working in union with God’s will. So if the tenets of os require this man to see satan as a separate power opposed to God, and if he were to embrace the requirement, his own view of the universe moves to one that is dualistic. If a human being does not know the limit of a power, then that power is phenomenologically infinite. An infinite power is a god.
The Jewish convert I described is inclined to do a bit of tampering.
Council of Trent dogma of faith:
Can. 18. If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed in grace impossible to observe: let him be anathema.
F
fhansen
Guest
Actually, he described pride as sinful, being “inordinate self-love”. The point is that man wades into troubled waters to the extent that he puts himself above God, that he refuses to heed His word IOW.
V
Vico
Guest
It was mortal sin (loss of sanctifying grace). It was not based upon ignorance or passion, but malice.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, I
Question 78. That cause of sin which is malice
Article 1. Whether anyone sins through certain malice?
Reply to Objection 2. Evil cannot be intended by anyone for its own sake; but it can be intended for the sake of avoiding another evil, or obtaining another good, as stated above: and in this case anyone would choose to obtain a good intended for its own sake, without suffering loss of the other good; even as a lustful man would wish to enjoy a pleasure without offending God; but with the two set before him to choose from, he prefers sinning and thereby incurring God’s anger, to being deprived of the pleasure.
and
I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.
newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm
F
fhansen
Guest
The “troubled waters”, however, are simply natural consequences, like being injured or killed by stepping off a cliff due to defying the laws of gravity. We will suffer by virtue of spiritual separation from our Maker. This is why the command to love God is a good command, even if the command-the law- by itself cannot cause us to appreciate its beauty, much less to obey it. We need to first of all learn what Adam missed, of our need for grace, of our need for God, who then proceeds to ‘place His law in our hearts and write them on our minds’.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Vico,
Term
MALICE
Definition
The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God. It is a contempt of the divine Author of the law, and an implicit denial of reverence toward God, who, as Creator, has a right to demand obedience of his creatures. It is the basic evil of sin.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34714
The lustful man does not desire to offend God, what happens in his mind is a blindness to the act against conscience. The man doubts that God truly is offended, just as Eve doubted that eating of the fruit would cause death. Neither Eve nor the lustful man intend to offend, they intend to “obtain a good”, and their own desire blinds them to the significance of the offense. Neither Eve nor the lustful man are “willing a contempt for the divine author”; their sin is because of blindness, a form of ignorance, not malice.
It is important that people become aware of when blindness occurs, and how it effects the mind. The wiser lustful man is aware of the blindness that occurs, the way that blindness can make something false appear true; which is a means by which he can avoid sin. Indeed, the wiser man is graced with such wisdom.
This would certainly be a “side issue” on the thread, but the Jewish convert found very attractive the idea that God forgives everyone, as presented by Jesus on the cross and reflected in the words of my signature. If God were subject to the human emotion of anger, it would be followed by an immediate forgiveness, for He is infinitely merciful, and forgiveness is an act of mercy. In addition, we are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”, and Jesus does not demonstrate holding onto anger as a perfection.
Arguably, the “corruption or disorder” is ignorance. The passions in themselves are good, not a disorder, but the passions do manifest the blindness I mentioned earlier, and blindness is a momentary ignorance. The right action is “known”, but the “knowing” itself is either out of the mind or is trivialized by the mind in the moment. The human intention is not for “a contempt of the divine Author of the law, and an implicit denial of reverence toward God”.
Vico, though you would probably think of me as a poor student, I am truly grateful for your resourcefulness and continued presentations. Thank you, you work is a gift to the forum.
Catholic Dictionary
Term
MALICE
Definition
The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God. It is a contempt of the divine Author of the law, and an implicit denial of reverence toward God, who, as Creator, has a right to demand obedience of his creatures. It is the basic evil of sin.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34714
The lustful man does not desire to offend God, what happens in his mind is a blindness to the act against conscience. The man doubts that God truly is offended, just as Eve doubted that eating of the fruit would cause death. Neither Eve nor the lustful man intend to offend, they intend to “obtain a good”, and their own desire blinds them to the significance of the offense. Neither Eve nor the lustful man are “willing a contempt for the divine author”; their sin is because of blindness, a form of ignorance, not malice.
It is important that people become aware of when blindness occurs, and how it effects the mind. The wiser lustful man is aware of the blindness that occurs, the way that blindness can make something false appear true; which is a means by which he can avoid sin. Indeed, the wiser man is graced with such wisdom.
This would certainly be a “side issue” on the thread, but the Jewish convert found very attractive the idea that God forgives everyone, as presented by Jesus on the cross and reflected in the words of my signature. If God were subject to the human emotion of anger, it would be followed by an immediate forgiveness, for He is infinitely merciful, and forgiveness is an act of mercy. In addition, we are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”, and Jesus does not demonstrate holding onto anger as a perfection.
This passage definitely presents a bit of “tampering” on the idea of os. To say that “Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good” is already describing man as having an inclination for the good. And since the appetite for the good is the guiding factor, and “corruption or disorder” causes an exception, Aquinas does not present the dim view, but the positive view. What is most significant are the words “if his appetite incline away to evil” which expresses such inclination as an exception. Because man has a natural appetite for the good, Aquinas appears not to be saying that there is an inclination (liking, preference, leaning) to evil at all, he is meaning “when people choose to do evil”.
Arguably, the “corruption or disorder” is ignorance. The passions in themselves are good, not a disorder, but the passions do manifest the blindness I mentioned earlier, and blindness is a momentary ignorance. The right action is “known”, but the “knowing” itself is either out of the mind or is trivialized by the mind in the moment. The human intention is not for “a contempt of the divine Author of the law, and an implicit denial of reverence toward God”.
Vico, though you would probably think of me as a poor student, I am truly grateful for your resourcefulness and continued presentations. Thank you, you work is a gift to the forum.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning,
Thanks for the correction.
If a person “puts himself above God” he is believing a untruth, which is ignorance, so the “inordinate self-love” is a matter of ignorance.
People refuse to heed His word for a number of reasons, all of which boil down to lack of awareness in general (ignorance) or in the moment (blindness). The human naturally has an appetite for the good (Aquinas), so it appears that original sin described as original ignorance has some merit.
Feel free to comment on my latest post to Vico!
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
V
Vico
Guest
An ignorant person can be culpable. The thing believed may be untrue and the thoughts, words, and deeds that follow be evil.
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
V
Vico
Guest
I am glad if I can help in the least bit.
Eve
With Eve the grave sin of pride occurred first in thought. Sin occurs in thought, word, and deed. It has three sources: ignorance, passion, and malice.
**Imputability
**
It is not necessary to intend to offend for the offense to occur.
Imputability …
No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.
Malice of venial sin
The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists in this: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance with the law, not in contrary opposition to it, not attacking its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect accomplishment is prevented by venial sin.
O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Concupiesence
Good has two meanings: “the good of reason; the other is in good perceptible to the senses.” Summa Theologica, I, II, Question 30. Concupiscence, Article 1. Whether concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite only?
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), “concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant.” Now pleasure is twofold, as we shall state later on (I-II:31:4): one is in the intelligible good, which is the good of reason; the other is in good perceptible to the senses. The former pleasure seems to belong to soul alone: whereas the latter belongs to both soul and body: because the sense is a power seated in a bodily organ: wherefore sensible good is the good of the whole composite. Now concupiscence seems to be the craving for this latter pleasure, since it belongs to the united soul and body, as is implied by the Latin word “concupiscentia.” Therefore, properly speaking, concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite, and in the concupiscible faculty, which takes its name from it.
newadvent.org/summa/2030.htm
The Church has countered these error about concupiscence:
- Pelagius: reduction the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example,
- Protestant reformers: insurmountable tendency to evil.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) 296 and at the Council of Trent (1546). 297
296 DS 371-372.
297 Cf. DS 1510-1516.
DS is Denzinger-Schönmetzer Sources of Catholic Dogma.
O
OneSheep
Guest
You have, Vico. This single line already presents a modification of original sin, it is a line that reflects Genesis 1. It uses words that truly describe what is foundational and natural in people. While avoiding the word “inclination”, it describes what is the guiding factor in people’s minds. It is from the wisdom of an observer:
“I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good”
- St. Thomas Aquinas
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, the nature remains good but is weakened and inclined to evil due to concupiscence. See Catechism 405.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Vico
It depends on the definition of “inclination”.
Looking again at this quote:
“I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good”
- St. Thomas Aquinas
I could state: “People are inclined to illness.” In this usage, I am saying “capacity”. So, with this synonym I could say that “People are inclined to sin” in the same way as “People are inclined to illness.”
Concerning concupiscence, we have this:
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), “concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant.” - St Thomas Aquinas
So, when CCC405 says: “an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence” we could say that the craving for that which is pleasant is in itself an inclination to evil. Obviously, the CCC and Aquinas are referring to two different phenomena. Aquinas is referring to “strong desire”, and the CCC is referring to capacity to do evil.
Again, there is obviously some variation in the way of looking at humankind and God’s approach to people, His image. As Usagi said, some tampering has been done, so the question has been answered for this thread, and there has been no undermining of faith.
O
OneSheep
Guest
It would be the dim view of humanity that a person who actually knows God, but does not heed His word is intending to put himself above God. People refuse to heed His word because they are either blind or ignorant, and strongly desire something, not because they want to put themselves above God. Eve did not say or believe, “I am above God” or “My own desires have priority above God”. She believed “you will surely not die” and “the fruit is good”, which were both arguably falsehoods.
In the benefit-of-the-doubt view, people have a natural appetite for the good. If a person wants to put herself above God, she is not coming from a position of awareness that all she has is from God and/or that God is all-benevolent. If a person puts herself above God inadvertently, then she is not knowing what she is doing either.
Jesus is the ultimate hermeneutical key to whether we are to take the dim view or a more positive view. While the dim view is very natural, (perhaps it can be said that we are naturally inclined to think that we are inclined to sin!), it is my reading of the Gospel and saints works that Jesus invites us to give people the benefit of the doubt.
V
Vico
Guest
No tampering. It is consistent in the Catechism.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Okay, it isn’t tampering, it is clarification. A little more clarification wouldn’t hurt, then.
- Status