Marital Act Passes Original Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Grelinger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dan_Grelinger

Guest
Logically, this seems to go toward ridiculous territory. For instance, are people conceived by in-vitro fertilization free from Original Sin?

From CASTI CONNUBII, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI.

‘… the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity …’

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Is this official Church teaching? The natural process would seem to be specific reference to the conjugal act. If it is ‘the’ way that original sin is passed on to posterity (our children), would children conceived outside of the marital act not need baptism?
 
No, it is not implying those conceived via in vitro are without original sin, you are reading too much into it.
 
No, it is not implying those conceived via in vitro are without original sin, you are reading too much into it.
Then the marital act does not pass original sin? And Pope Pius XI was in error? Or there is more than one way that original sin is passed? What are all the possible ways?

Sorry, I feel your response was a little too brief to hold any weight without further work.
 
Then the marital act does not pass original sin? And Pope Pius XI was in error? Or there is more than one way that original sin is passed? What are all the possible ways?
Pope Pius wrote without error. But neither did he possses the foreknowledge that there would ever be a way to create life without the marital act. Even given that ommission, the statement is still true.

‘… the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity …’

The process of generating life naturally still exists. It is just not the **only **process anymore.
 
Then the marital act does not pass original sin? And Pope Pius XI was in error? Or there is more than one way that original sin is passed? What are all the possible ways?

Sorry, I feel your response was a little too brief to hold any weight without further work.
I suggest you read Frank Sheed, Theology For Beginners.

You must remember that the soul is specially created by God, and the inheritance of original sin is of the spiritual realm as it is a condition of the soul. The effects of original sin are, of course, still felt by the body.

We humans are seen as one by God, connected by our material bodies and the transmisison of life from one generation to the next (by whatever means, it is still material). This is in contrast to the angels which are individual. There is no “race” of angels. Each angel chose individually, fell or did not fall. There is no original sin for angels to inherit. They are specially created by God, being pure spirits. They have no matter, are not interconnected by their material generation.
 
Pope Pius wrote without error. But neither did he possses the foreknowledge that there would ever be a way to create life without the marital act. Even given that ommission, the statement is still true.

‘… the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity …’

The process of generating life naturally still exists. It is just not the **only **process anymore.
So, to understand better…

He wrote without error becuase of his ignorance of another method of creating life?
 
You must remember that the soul is specially created by God, and the inheritance of original sin is of the spiritual realm as it is a condition of the soul. The effects of original sin are, of course, still felt by the body.

We humans are seen as one by God, connected by our material bodies and the transmisison of life from one generation to the next (by whatever means, it is still material). This is in contrast to the angels which are individual. There is no “race” of angels. Each angel chose individually, fell or did not fall. There is no original sin for angels to inherit. They are specially created by God, being pure spirits. They have no matter, are not interconnected by their material generation.
You state something different than Pope Pius XI. And I don’t find issue with what you wrote. If inheritance of original sin is a condition of the soul at creation, then it would seem that the method by which the life, body and soul was created, by the conjugal act or in a petri dish, is of no effect. Which appears different tan what the Pope said in his encyclical.
 
You state something different than Pope Pius XI. And I don’t find issue with what you wrote. If inheritance of original sin is a condition of the soul at creation, then it would seem that the method by which the life, body and soul was created, by the conjugal act or in a petri dish, is of no effect. Which appears different tan what the Pope said in his encyclical.
No, it isn’t different.

He is talking about human generation, the material component of our bodies.

See the Catechism:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

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
 
no.

His writing encompasses all generation of human life.
Then I am not able to resolve the apparent contradiction. Either the conjugal act is the act that conveys original sin to a child’s soul, or it is one of many ways. If Pope Pius XI said it was the way only because he did not know there would be other ways, would not that still mean that the statement is in error, although for reasons the Pope is not responsible for?
 
You are overly emphasizing the article “the” which does not have the meaning you give it. The entire paragraph 14 of Casti Connubii is a comparison/contrast of the regenerated state of the parents and the unregenerated state of their offspring, the transmission of original sin via the transmission of life to our offspring. There is nothing new here.
 
Then I am not able to resolve the apparent contradiction. Either the conjugal act is the act that conveys original sin to a child’s soul, or it is one of many ways. If Pope Pius XI said it was the way only because he did not know there would be other ways, would not that still mean that the statement is in error, although for reasons the Pope is not responsible for?
No, because the Pope’s writings are NOT a scientific treastise.
 
You are overly emphasizing the article “the” which does not have the meaning you give it. The entire paragraph 14 of Casti Connubii is a comparison/contrast of the regenerated state of the parents and the unregenerated state of their offspring, the transmission of original sin via the transmission of life to our offspring. There is nothing new here.
Your response makes sense to me, if you suggest that it is ANY act that brings new life to our offspring that passes on original sin. That is, what the Pope refers to as ‘the very natural process of generating life’, is conception, not the conjugal act. And that conception, inherently natural, may be forced by illegitimate means, such as in-vitro fertilization, and that this unnatural forcing of a ‘natural process’ does not prevent original sin.

Do I have it right?
 
No, because the Pope’s writings are NOT a scientific treastise.
I did not suggest it was. I am only exploring its truth. Or more precisely, my understanding of the truth it appears to be stating.
 
Your response makes sense to me, if you suggest that it is ANY act that brings new life to our offspring that passes on original sin. That is, what the Pope refers to as ‘the very natural process of generating life’, is conception, not the conjugal act. And that conception, inherently natural, may be forced by illegitimate means, such as in-vitro fertilization, and that this unnatural forcing of a ‘natural process’ does not prevent original sin.

Do I have it right?
Yes.
 
If a person conceived in vitro turns out to be immortal, then the Pope is wrong.
 
Assuming that the Pope meant any transmission of life from parents to children is bundled with sin (which seems to be the consensus here), in vitro immortality would show that there is a way to filter the sin out.
 
Then I am not able to resolve the apparent contradiction. Either the conjugal act is the act that conveys original sin to a child’s soul, or it is one of many ways. If Pope Pius XI said it was the way only because he did not know there would be other ways, would not that still mean that the statement is in error, although for reasons the Pope is not responsible for?
No, it would not. Because he was not in error.

He did not say that it was the ONLY way of conveying original sin to a child’s soul. Adam and Eve, for example, were, after the Fall, as prone to original sin as you or I. But they certainly didn’t have it passed on to them by the marital act of their parents! In their case it was the result of their personal sin.

He did not say anything to the effect of ‘natural and ONLY natural, but not unnatural, processes of generating children convey original sin’.

Similarly, if he said ‘the sacrament of confession obtains forgiveness of sins’, that is true of course. But we also know that venial sins do not require confession. That they are forgiven in other ways, such as devout reception of Holy Communion. So his saying ‘the sacrament obtains forgiveness’ does not mean that those who do not go to confession cannot have their (venial) sins forgiven.

So, your apparent contradiction turns out not to be a contradiction at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top