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

[OneSheep]

Concupiscence should be resented, in the sense of wanting to overcome it.

I am coming from the position that we can overcome something by in part dropping resentment. We can come to accept our strong desires and the way that those desires alter our minds, as strong desire is part of our God-given nature and serves us. We cannot stop strong desire, we can only come to an awareness of when desire has effected our minds, and then act according to reason.

Self-mastery is way more desirable. The benefit, however, is that we can become aware, by experience, of the futility of concupiscence, of a “freedom” that brings enslavement in the end. Concupiscence, in a manner of speaking, is freedom from the constraints God placed on creation, on us.

Hmmm. Concupiscence as freedom? Yet desire itself enslaves. I don’t see strong desire as much “freeing” as it is “serving”. Strong desire enhances our survival as a species, just as it does all other species that have strong desires.

As we come to freely recognize and accept our limitations, our “creaturely status” vis a vis God, an awareness that comes as we begin to know and love Him, then order rather than disorder begins to hold sway; we become increasingly grounded and in control. Ironically, perhaps, Adam actually lost control by seeking to gain total control. Anyway, I like St Basil’s summary of how this all plays out:

**“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.” **

The New Covenant in a nutshell.

 

[OneSheep]

Catechism

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

This is beautiful, Vico, thank you.

 

[fhansen]

I am coming from the position that we can overcome something by in part dropping resentment. We can come to accept our strong desires and the way that those desires alter our minds, as strong desire is part of our God-given nature and serves us. We cannot stop strong desire, we can only come to an awareness of when desire has effected our minds, and then act according to reason.

Hmmm. Concupiscence as freedom? Yet desire itself enslaves. I don’t see strong desire as much “freeing” as it is “serving”. Strong desire enhances our survival as a species, just as it does all other species that have strong desires.

Strong, disordered, desire is simply out of the norm for man. It’s to be unbalanced. It’s to attempt a greater freedom than we have-it issues forth from freedom from God and any and all constraints that He might’ve placed on us. It’s a failure to recognize Him and his prerogatives. It results in human angst, disharmony, loss of integrity. The smallest white lie is a gross disruption in the natural order of the universe. At its worse it’s to sin even if we might think or know its wrong. This attempt at freedom actually leads to enslavement, the “enslavement to sin” as it’s called. Our freedom comes from knowing our place, which involves recognition of and subjugation to God, again, freely realized only as we come to know and love Him.

Concupiscence is a direct result of an alienation and distancing from God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’, which itself, results as we consider obedience to Him to be a deprivation. The freedom “won” by Adam resulted in no freedom at all even as the world may well continue to value and pursue that “freedom”.

 

[simpleas]

Ok, if from birth we were born united with God as He desires, as justice presumably demands; if we loved Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves IOW, would humans beheading humans, or gossiping about humans, or lying to humans, or stealing from humans, be a possibility?

Yes, like I said because of freewill.

Adam and Eve would have only been able to do what you describe above because they were not sinful, yet they sinned by using their freewill.

What is wrong with thinking we are united to God? Being in union with God doesn’t mean we would choose to stay in union, in fact believing we are closer to God rather than born separated from him gives a sense of security.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, like I said because of freewill.

Adam and Eve would have only been able to do what you describe above because they were not sinful, yet they sinned by using their freewill.

What is wrong with thinking we are united to God? Being in union with God doesn’t mean we would choose to stay in union, in fact believing we are closer to God rather than born separated from him gives a sense of security.

Well, sin is what separates us from Him. So the fact that we’re born with a tendency to sin, as evidenced by our newspapers and often our own relationships and actions, confirms our distancing from Him. To know and love God in that way is just now the way we’re born, to be honest, even as He knows and loves us immensely from that point.

 

[fhansen]

Well, sin is what separates us from Him. So the fact that we’re born with a tendency to sin, as evidenced by our newspapers and often our own relationships and actions, confirms our distancing from Him. To know and love God in that way is just now the way we’re born, to be honest, even as He knows and loves us immensely from that point.

That was meant to say, “To know and love God in that way just isn’t the way we’re born, to be honest, even as He knows and loves us immensely from that point.”

 

[simpleas]

Well, sin is what separates us from Him. So the fact that we’re born with a tendency to sin, as evidenced by our newspapers and often our own relationships and actions, confirms our distancing from Him. To know and love God in that way is just now the way we’re born, to be honest, even as He knows and loves us immensely from that point.

We aren’t born to kill either. Yes we need to learn as babies/children/teens/adults but none of this learning should mean we are born separate from God.

Just being born must mean something to God. We were known before we were formed in the womb, it’s us that like to control who gets Gods grace and who doesn’t.

 

[fhansen]

We aren’t born to kill either. Yes we need to learn as babies/children/teens/adults but none of this learning should mean we are born separate from God.

Just being born must mean something to God. We were known before we were formed in the womb, it’s us that like to control who gets Gods grace and who doesn’t.

Yes, well,it’s also us who controls whether or not we bother to receive God’s grace or not. He’s always there-it’s just that we may or may not care. The state of not knowing, let alone not caring about God could be one description of the state of OS. Adam & Eve presumably knew Him originally much more intimately than we do now. We meet Him and redevelop that relationship as He draws us-and as we answer that call.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, well,it’s also us who controls whether or not we bother to receive God’s grace or not. He’s always there-it’s just that we may or may not care. The state of not knowing, let alone not caring about God could be one description of the state of OS. Adam & Eve presumably knew Him originally much more intimately than we do now. We meet Him and redevelop that relationship as He draws us-and as we answer that call.

I don’t think the original relationship is ever redeveloped. Going off just two people through thousands of people to get to our understanding of God in our times is vastly different to A&E’s understanding, whatever their understanding was.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think the original relationship is ever redeveloped. Going off just two people through thousands of people to get to our understanding of God in our times is vastly different to A&E’s understanding, whatever their understanding was.

You may be right. But I tend to think we share more in common with A&E than otherwise-and that’s one reason the story is quite relevant for us.

 

[simpleas]

You may be right. But I tend to think we share more in common with A&E than otherwise-and that’s one reason the story is quite relevant for us.

I think we relate to the person who wrote the story

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen,
We have been here before, I think. To disbelieve God, to favor one’s opinion over his is indeed disordered. It is a disorder in that it indicates ignorance or blindness. Of course, it is against reason because reason assumes complete awareness in order to make accurate choices. So, while the choice made may have been to reject His word, the choice is made not with the intent to reject God, because a true rejection of God would involve knowing God and knowing that rejection of His word was indeed a rejection of Him.

So, we have three cases:

1. Rejection of His word without intent to reject Him. This is mostly described above.
2. Rejection of His word with intent to reject Him. In this case, the rejection is disordered because anyone with full knowledge of God, seen and known as the source of Love and all that is good would not reject Him other than the decision to self-destruct.
3. A decision to self-destruct is disordered because it involves seeing oneself as having little or no value, which is an untruth.

fhansen;14395633:

I tend to think there’s still something missing here: pride. Pride is obstinate, a sort of exalting of the self is spite of or in opposition to the inconvenient truth of who we are-and who God is. It’s rebellious and ultimately destructive/harmful. It may prefer

ignorance. It constitutes something less innocent and more insidious than your “ignorance alone” model IMO.
.

Good Morning fhansen,

Well, we have a natural tendency to exalt ourselves, to want power and status. This is part of our God-given nature, an appetite we share with many other of God’s creatures.

As soon as you say “in opposition of (inconvenient) truth” either number 1 or number 2 apply. We have to return to the implied questions, “Why does a person rebel, why might a person prefer ignorance?”, it can be shown that the answers can be found in our good nature and our ignorance/blindness.

As strange as this may sound, it is part of our good nature that the mind resists the idea that there is nothing insidious in our nature. To resent part of ourselves is the way our conscience functions, resentment (expressed in the word “insidious”) guides our actions, our gut reactions are built by this internal resentment. It’s all good!

I think, though, that we are called to a greater wholeness, a greater holiness. It is an invitation. The gut reactions never really go away, in my experience. What can be addressed is a reconciliation within, we can reconcile with all of our past experiences and motives. We can take a very open-minded and non-judgmental approach to our past sins and understand why we did what we did. If the answer while doing such investigation is “because something within me is insidious”, then we can see that this is not a reason, but another judgment, a self-condemnation. Look at what St. Paul did; he saw that when he persecuted Christians he was ignorant, not because he was evil in some way.

Is such self-condemnation disordered? If it is, it is a disorder that is good, it serves a purpose. It may cloud our view of humanity a bit, but such clouding is functional.

You see, the concept of original sin is not something I find wrong. If original sin doctrine reflects the natural human conscience’ resentment of parts of ourselves, then it expresses a way that people truly see themselves,: that there is something insidious about people. What I see from the Gospel is that Jesus accepts this approach, but invites us to an inner reconciliation. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” is an invitation to an inner reconciliation. It is a reconciliation that in fruition leads to no longer seeing anything insidious in people.

If there is any “tampering” to be done, it would not be a tampering that tells people that negative feelings about ourselves are flat-out unfounded. But does reconciliation with ourselves (motives, drives, lack of awareness, etc.) to the point of seeing nothing “insidious” within undermine the mystery of Christ, or is such reconciliation what Christ invites us to? And then, when the inner reconciliation erases the negative (the darkness goes away), why not have the CCC make room for a different anthropology?

 

[OneSheep]

Now that I think on this a little further, it is worthwhile comparing and contrasting the self-reflections of St. Paul vs. St. Augustine.

Arguably, what Saul did in persecuting Christians was much more horrific than anything St. Augustine ever did. St. Paul (Saul), upon reflecting why he persecuted Christians, realized that he did not know what he was doing.

On the other hand, St. Augustine, “the father of the doctrine of original sin” in my reading was never able to reconcile with his acts of wasting his neighbors pears as a young man, nor could he forgive himself for preaching/adhering to Manichaeism.

If he had been able to reconcile with his motives, desires and ignorance, if he had been able to see his previous embracing of Manichaeism as more of a stage of his own developing theology, would he have concluded a doctrine of original sin?

Sounds like a topic for a new thread; we may have played out this one. It’s been a great discussion, I think, and I am very grateful to all who contributed.

 

[fhansen]

Now that I think on this a little further, it is worthwhile comparing and contrasting the self-reflections of St. Paul vs. St. Augustine.

Arguably, what Saul did in persecuting Christians was much more horrific than anything St. Augustine ever did. St. Paul (Saul), upon reflecting why he persecuted Christians, realized that he did not know what he was doing.

On the other hand, St. Augustine, “the father of the doctrine of original sin” in my reading was never able to reconcile with his acts of wasting his neighbors pears as a young man, nor could he forgive himself for preaching/adhering to Manichaeism.

If he had been able to reconcile with his motives, desires and ignorance, if he had been able to see his previous embracing of Manichaeism as more of a stage of his own developing theology, would he have concluded a doctrine of original sin?

Sounds like a topic for a new thread; we may have played out this one. It’s been a great discussion, I think, and I am very grateful to all who contributed.

I tend to think they were both convicted of sin in any case. Here’s a quote from a March 2013 Angelus of Pope Francis that I ran into last night, that spells out the Catholic position quite well.

"Ah, Brothers and Sisters, God’s face is the face of a merciful father who is always patient. Have you thought about God’s patience, the patience he has with each one of us? That is his mercy. He always has patience, patience with us, he understands us, he does not tire of forgiving us if we are able to return to him with a contrite heart. ‘Great is God’s mercy,’ says the Psalm."

 

[Vico]

Now that I think on this a little further, it is worthwhile comparing and contrasting the self-reflections of St. Paul vs. St. Augustine.

Arguably, what Saul did in persecuting Christians was much more horrific than anything St. Augustine ever did. St. Paul (Saul), upon reflecting why he persecuted Christians, realized that he did not know what he was doing.

On the other hand, St. Augustine, “the father of the doctrine of original sin” in my reading was never able to reconcile with his acts of wasting his neighbors pears as a young man, nor could he forgive himself for preaching/adhering to Manichaeism.

If he had been able to reconcile with his motives, desires and ignorance, if he had been able to see his previous embracing of Manichaeism as more of a stage of his own developing theology, would he have concluded a doctrine of original sin?

Sounds like a topic for a new thread; we may have played out this one. It’s been a great discussion, I think, and I am very grateful to all who contributed.

• The primitive Church professed the reality of original sin in the Christian baptism of children" for the remission of sin". This is to supply grace which is not present as it was in Adam and Eve.
• Death is distinguished from sin so is called a consequence of sin.
• Concupiscence is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains, so is also called a consequence of sin.

 

[fhansen]

• The primitive Church professed the reality of original sin in the Christian baptism of children" for the remission of sin". This is to supply grace which is not present as it was in Adam and Eve.
• Death is distinguished from sin so is called a consequence of sin.
• Concupiscence is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains, so is also called a consequence of sin.

Sounds good except this doesn’t sound right, “Concupiscence is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption”. Concupiscence remains, no?

 

[Vico]

Sounds good except this doesn’t sound right, “Concupiscence is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption”. Concupiscence remains, no?

Thank you, it should have been:
Sin is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains, so [concupiscence] is also called a consequence of sin.

I should have pasted the reference from Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p 109, for:

Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

… The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5 12-21, …

By sin (amartia) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains as experience shows.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. 20 Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. 21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on original sin.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Romans 5:12

12 It was through one man that guilt came into the world; and, since death came owing to guilt, death was handed on to all mankind by one man. (All alike were guilty men;[2] 13 there was guilt in the world before ever the law of Moses was given. Now, it is only where there is a law to transgress that guilt is imputed,[3] 14 and yet we see death reigning in the world from Adam’s time to the time of Moses, over men who were not themselves guilty of transgressing a law, as Adam was.) In this, Adam was the type of him who was to come. 15 Only, the grace which came to us was out of all proportion to the fault. If this one man’s fault brought death on a whole multitude, all the more lavish was God’s grace, shown to a whole multitude, that free gift he made us in the grace brought by one man, Jesus Christ. 16 The extent of the gift is not as if it followed a single guilty act; the sentence which brought us condemnation arose out of one man’s action, whereas the pardon that brings us acquittal arises out of a multitude of faults. 17 And if death began its reign through one man, owing to one man’s fault, more fruitful still is the grace, the gift of justification, which bids men enjoy a reign of life through one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Well then, one man commits a fault, and it brings condemnation upon all; one man makes amends, and it brings to all justification, that is, life. 19 A multitude will become acceptable to God through one man’s obedience, just as a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became guilty. 20 The law intervened, only to amplify our fault; but, as our fault was amplified, grace has been more amply bestowed than ever; 21 that so, where guilt held its reign of death, justifying grace should reign instead, to bring us eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[rinnie]

Thank you, it should have been:
Sin is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains, so [concupiscence] is also called a consequence of sin.

I should have pasted the reference from Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p 109, for:

Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

… The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5 12-21, …

By sin (amartia) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desire remains as experience shows.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. 20 Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. 21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve we have a physical death. Its called original sin. It is the consequence of sin. Christ came down and took away the death of our soul not the death of our human bodies. If original sin did not exist, then physical death would not exist.

 

[OneSheep]

I tend to think they were both convicted of sin in any case. Here’s a quote from a March 2013 Angelus of Pope Francis that I ran into last night, that spells out the Catholic position quite well.

"Ah, Brothers and Sisters, God’s face is the face of a merciful father who is always patient. Have you thought about God’s patience, the patience he has with each one of us? That is his mercy. He always has patience, patience with us, he understands us, he does not tire of forgiving us if we are able to return to him with a contrite heart. ‘Great is God’s mercy,’ says the Psalm."

Good Morning,

What can be seen is that both the words above and the words in my signature from Pope Francis reflect the Gospel. There are two ways of dealing with the word “if”.

One way of dealing with the word “if” is to say that God’s forgiveness is conditional, that God only forgives if we are contrite, that His forgiveness, His mercy, depends on our attitude. If we have a bad attitude toward God, He has nothing to do with us; it would be unjust for God to forgive (from the heart) an unrepentant person.

The other way dealing with the word “if” is to say that even though God always forgives, the forgiveness is not made real, not manifested in the person’s spiritual well-being unless he returns with a contrite heart. After all, a person who lacks contrition and hangs onto justifying his evil ways and/or refuses to forgive is not in relationship, or has very poor relationship, with the Father. The “if” in this case refers to a lack of manifested reconciliation, not a lack of forgiveness from God.

You see, the person that prefers the first way of dealing with the word “if” above finds that the concept of “original sin” makes sense if it means that forgiveness can sometimes be unjust. OTOH, the person who sees that God always forgives would find reason to tamper with the concept of os. It looks to me like Aquinas and others have broadened the doctrine to allow for some variation.