Monogenism and Original Sin

[TK421]

Okay, I guess I was bound to run into a road bump eventually. This is so far the one and only issue that’s caused me some trepidation.

What are the orthodox bounds in which a Catholic is at liberty to view the doctrine of original sin as it applies to the genesis of the human race? As I understand it, Adam and Eve were both real saints and have been canonized, and through them the taint of original sin was propagated to the entire human race. Does this strictly mean that 1) one must believe that the human race propagated solely out of a single human couple, or 2) that original sin itself solely spread via a single couple (though they weren’t necessarily the only couple), or 3) that all of humanity became tainted with original sin as a result of the temptation from Satan on Adam and Eve, but this original sin was not something spread biologically per se, from parent to child, but still became a part of human spiritual condition from that point forward after the Fall. Or 4) Something else?

Outside of discussion here, feel free to throw a link to any article or book that you feel does a particularly good job of discussing this subject.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Okay, I guess I was bound to run into a road bump eventually. This is so far the one and only issue that’s caused me some trepidation.

What are the orthodox bounds in which a Catholic is at liberty to view the doctrine of original sin as it applies to the genesis of the human race? As I understand it, Adam and Eve were both real saints and have been canonized, and through them the taint of original sin was propagated to the entire human race. Does this strictly mean that 1) one must believe that the human race propagated solely out of a single human couple, or 2) that original sin itself solely spread via a single couple (though they weren’t necessarily the only couple), or 3) that all of humanity became tainted with original sin as a result of the temptation from Satan on Adam and Eve, but this original sin was not something spread biologically per se, from parent to child, but still became a part of human spiritual condition from that point forward after the Fall. Or 4) Something else?

Outside of discussion here, feel free to throw a link to any article or book that you feel does a particularly good job of discussing this subject.

Thank you for asking this question. I will pay attention to the replies.

 

[TK421]

Oh shoot. I just saw the sticky in this section. Please just delete this thread.

 

[AgainstHeretics]

It is of the faith that the whole human race is descended from a single couple, although they have not been canonized.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is of the faith that the whole human race is descended from a single couple, although they have not been canonized.

Can you give us the dogma one must believe about this single couple?

 

[AgainstHeretics]

Can you give us the dogma one must believe about this single couple?

Read Humani Generis.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Read Humani Generis.

Did that. This is why I can not accept the conditions to be a Catholic.

 

[AgainstHeretics]

Did that. This is why I can not accept the conditions to be a Catholic.

Why is it an impediment?

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic theology of Original Sin can begin with Romans 5: 12-21 and then working backwards, one finds the necessity for a real Adam as the first real human.

When one reads the first three chapters of Genesis, one finds that Original Sin begins with the relationship between God the Creator and Adam the creature who is created in the image of God. In simple language, God is a transcendent (supernatural) Divine Pure Spirit without restrictions.

Adam’s nature, the same as ours, is an unique unification of the* both* the spiritual world and material world. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-368) Because of his spiritual principle (soul), Adam begins his life in relationship/friendship with God.

Catholic theology teaches that not only was Adam the first human being, the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” We know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. His descendants would be born in the state of friendship with God. (CCC 404-405)

Adam is not God.

Because of his creaturely status, the only way that Adam could maintain his original friendship with God was to live in free submission to God. The interesting thing about Original Sin (besides knowing what kind of organic fruit was so tempting ) is that Adam wanted to be just as smart and all-knowing as his Creator. What other knowledge is there besides that of good and evil? Instead of following God’s command, Adam preferred his own pride-filled desires and by that very act scorned his Creator. “He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.” (CCC 396-400) The result shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity.

Yet, God did not abandon humanity. John 3:16

The necessity for Jesus Christ, as the Divine Redeemer, rests on the fact that Adam, a creature, broke humanity’s relationship with divinity. The Reconciler had to be both divine and human in order to repair the damage on God’s level and to represent the perpetrator who was human. The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. (CCC 389)

It follows that Original Sin necessitates that it be committed by the Original Human. Christ hung bleeding on a cross for all. And all is guaranteed by one founder of humanity.

You may find the thread “Adam & Logic” interesting. It is also in the Philosophy Forum. The thread respectfully is in accord with this sticky. Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 1 2)
Jo Benedict

 

[weller2]

The Catholic theology of Original Sin can begin with Romans 5: 12-21 and then working backwards, one finds the necessity for a real Adam as the first real human.

When one reads the first three chapters of Genesis, one finds that Original Sin begins with the relationship between God the Creator and Adam the creature who is created in the image of God. In simple language, God is a transcendent (supernatural) Divine Pure Spirit without restrictions.

Interpretetation of the Genesis account does NOT require assuming that Adam was a single person. The Hebrew text uses the term ha-adam, mankind. In fact, assumming that Adam was a single person leads to several absurdities later on: (1) further reproduction is only possible via incest, which is expressly forbidden; (2) Cain has offspring, but where did he find a wife?; (3) Cain is given a mark, so other people will kill him… wait, where did these other people come from? All of these disappear if you assume that Adam, Cain, etc. are names of tribes (or their leaders). The whole story makes sense without massive handwaving needed otherwise.

Regarding Romans 5, this is Paul’s opinion on the Atonement. An opinion which has been obviously influenced by Paul’s worldview. Speciation wasn’t known in Paul’s time; horses came from horses, sheep came from sheep, and humans from humans, so it was obvious to him that there had to be a first horse, first sheep, and, obviously, a first human. So everything wrong with human obviously had to be traced back to the first human.

So, in my opinion, in 21st century the Catholic view of the Original Sin is difficult to defend, because it relies on several things which are at least doubtful (Note however, that there are non-orthodox views of the Original Sin which do not have these problems):

1. It requires a rather extravagant interpretation of the Hebrew scripture.
2. It requires human origins in contradiction with modern science: (1) monogenism, which is today thought to be genetically impossible; (2) a distinguishable first human, but under evolutionary view, the transition from proto-human to human is gradual, and hence a first human is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint.
3. It requires that God is vengeful, and punishes children for sins of their parents;
4. It necessitates viewing the Atonement through the lens of the Penal Substitution Theory, which has its own share of problems; i.e. if God is indeed merciful, then why did he go through all that complicated scheme of getting his own son killed, instead of simply forgiving mankind its sins?
5. Original Sin is transmitted through “natural generation”. In modern terms, it means that Original Sin has all the accidents (in Thomistic sense) of a hereditiary / genetic disorder. Can it be linked to a piece of DNA then? What if we edited this part of DNA to clease ourselves of it? Or, will you (ab)use the accidents/substance duality and claim that something which walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck… is not a duck?
6. If you produce a human through IVF / cloning / assembling a human DNA sequence from scratch, this is obviously not “natural generaion”. Is this human tainted with the Original Sin? What is the theological status of IVF / cloned / assembled-from-scratch humans? Soulles? Not fallen, i.e. angelic? Not human?

 

[weller2]

Because of his creaturely status, the only way that Adam could maintain his original friendship with God was to live in free submission to God. The interesting thing about Original Sin (besides knowing what kind of organic fruit was so tempting ) is that Adam wanted to be just as smart and all-knowing as his Creator. What other knowledge is there besides that of good and evil? Instead of following God’s command, Adam preferred his own pride-filled desires and by that very act scorned his Creator.

What good is freedom you cannot exercise?

I build a robot. My robot obeys me. I give my robot free will, i.e. the capacity to disobey me. But, if my free willed robot obeys me, it is no different from a normal robot, so why go through the extra trouble? And if my robot disobeys me, it does so because I have given him the capacity do so myself. But if so, how can I blame my robot for doing what I designed him to do? Contrary; a robot which knows good and evil can be now released into the wild, because it has demonstrated that it can think for itself.

It isn’t expulsion. It’s graduation.

 

[grannymh]

So, in my opinion, in 21st century the Catholic view of the Original Sin is difficult to defend, because it relies on several things which are at least doubtful (Note however, that there are non-orthodox views of the Original Sin which do not have these problems):

Regarding your six points in post 10, may I gently suggest that you post some of your concerns in Apologetics or other appropriate Forums that deal with the structure of the Catholic Church and the general interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures

1. It requires a rather extravagant interpretation of the Hebrew scripture.

A basic understanding of how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth is essential when dealing with individual verses in Scripture. Primarily, the Catholic Church is established by Jesus Christ and is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Other Forums are more suited to deal with the general relationship between Scripture and the history of Catholic doctrines, etc.

1. It requires human origins in contradiction with modern science: (1) monogenism, which is today thought to be genetically impossible; (2) a distinguishable first human, but under evolutionary view, the transition from proto-human to human is gradual, and hence a first human is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

This concern is basically connected with the Heresy of Modernism. Technically, it is off topic in this thread. In addition, there is this sticky at the top of this Forum.
Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)

1. It requires that God is vengeful, and punishes children for sins of their parents;

This is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. It necessitates viewing the Atonement through the lens of the Penal Substitution Theory, which has its own share of problems; i.e. if God is indeed merciful, then why did he go through all that complicated scheme of getting his own son killed, instead of simply forgiving mankind its sins?

The simple answer is that humans, including you and me, are not on the same level or status as God, the Creator. John 3:16 is often considered the summary of the four Gospels. In any interpretation, one has to begin with the fact that God loved His created humans, including you and me, then and now.

1. Original Sin is transmitted through “natural generation”. In modern terms, it means that Original Sin has all the accidents (in Thomistic sense) of a hereditiary / genetic disorder. Can it be linked to a piece of DNA then? What if we edited this part of DNA to clease ourselves of it? Or, will you (ab)use the accidents/substance duality and claim that something which walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck… is not a duck?

The Catholic Church teaches that human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. For further information, please read paragraphs 355-368 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

1. If you produce a human through IVF / cloning / assembling a human DNA sequence from scratch, this is obviously not “natural generaion”. Is this human tainted with the Original Sin? What is the theological status of IVF / cloned / assembled-from-scratch humans? Soulles? Not fallen, i.e. angelic? Not human?

When explaining Original Sin from the Catholic position, it is important to first understand Catholic terminology. For example, “tainted with the Original Sin” may sound like a useful description, but, in reality, it is not a Catholic teaching. Going back to my answer to concern 5., understanding human nature is a priority when exploring the facets of Original Sin.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve’s loss of the state of original holiness is the first tragic result of Adam’s choice to go against the requirements of his being a creature and not the Creator. Being in the state of sanctifying grace and sharing in the life of God are also ways of describing Adam and Eve’s original state of holiness and justice. The Garden of Eden was a peace-filled place.

My apology. I will have to continue responding this evening.

 

[weller2]

This concern is basically connected with the Heresy of Modernism. Technically, it is off topic in this thread. In addition, there is this sticky at the top of this Forum.

Huh? This isn’t off-topic, this was the most on topic thing in the whole post . The OP asks:

Does this strictly mean that 1) one must believe that the human race propagated solely out of a single human couple

The answer to which is YES, the Catholics should believe that, as instructed in Humani Generis. Why this belief has to be held has to do with how the Original Sin is transmitted. In other words, how did a personal sin by Adam changed the entire human nature.

A 5th century heretic Pelagius asserted that the OS spread by immitation, while Augustine of Hippo disagreed:

But so far as I have discovered from others, they [Pelagians] think that the death which is here mentioned is not the death of the body, which they will not allow Adam to have deserved by his sin, but that of the soul, which takes place in actual sin; and that this actual sin has not been transmitted from the first man to other persons by natural descent, but by imitation. Hence, likewise, they refuse to believe that in infants original sin is remitted through baptism, for they contend that no such original sin exists at all in people by their birth. But if the apostle had wished to assert that sin entered into the world, not by natural descent, but by imitation, he would have mentioned as the first offender, not Adam indeed, but the devil, …]

On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book I, ch. 9. (emphasis mine)

Augustine’s repeated references to “natural descent” make it clear that he believed the OS is inherited from one’s parents, who in turn inhertited it from their parents, who… etc., all the way back to Adam.

Now, a rather obvious implication of the Augustinian view of OS is that, if you had a human who is not descended from Adam through “natural descent”, then such person would be free of OS. This, in turn, leads to absurdity, as OS, being closely tied to free will, is an essential part of a human nature. Of course, back in 5th century such suggestion would be completely ridiculous: horses bred horses, sheep bred sheep, and humans bred humans, so a first human seemed an entirely logical proposition.

Things started complicating in 19th century when one Charles Darwin asserted things which cannot be discussed here, but which blurred the distinction between a human and an animal. Theologians responded by claiming that an arbitrary boundary exists, although, they were unable to identify it. But, as the boundary existed, there had to be the first being to cross it, which was Adam.

Another blow came in late 20th century, when geneticists started uttering things about allelles, diversity, population sizes, and molecular clocks. Long story short, scientists claim that having mankind start from one-of-a-kind Adam is impossible, and, the minimum initial population was 1000 or so. Now, this is much more serious stuff than these Darwinian perversions. Because if Adam lived among the population of 1000 others, then, it’s entirely conceivable that people exist(ed), whose lineage does not trace to him, but to those 1000 others, and so, such people would be free from OS, which is absurd. On the other hand, if you claim that Adam’s sin corrupted that 1000 others by them following his example, then you subscribe to the heresy of Pelagianism.

So, in a nutshell, the situation is this:

• scientific view is that there was no single, identifiable Adam
• Catholics must believe that there was a single, identifiable Adam.

Thus, Catholics have to hold a belief which is scientifically known to be false – a situation resembling the heliocentrism controversy.

 

[edwest2]

Interpretetation of the Genesis account does NOT require assuming that Adam was a single person. The Hebrew text uses the term ha-adam, mankind. In fact, assumming that Adam was a single person leads to several absurdities later on: (1) further reproduction is only possible via incest, which is expressly forbidden; (2) Cain has offspring, but where did he find a wife?; (3) Cain is given a mark, so other people will kill him… wait, where did these other people come from? All of these disappear if you assume that Adam, Cain, etc. are names of tribes (or their leaders). The whole story makes sense without massive handwaving needed otherwise.

Regarding Romans 5, this is Paul’s opinion on the Atonement. An opinion which has been obviously influenced by Paul’s worldview. Speciation wasn’t known in Paul’s time; horses came from horses, sheep came from sheep, and humans from humans, so it was obvious to him that there had to be a first horse, first sheep, and, obviously, a first human. So everything wrong with human obviously had to be traced back to the first human.

So, in my opinion, in 21st century the Catholic view of the Original Sin is difficult to defend, because it relies on several things which are at least doubtful (Note however, that there are non-orthodox views of the Original Sin which do not have these problems):

1. It requires a rather extravagant interpretation of the Hebrew scripture.
2. It requires human origins in contradiction with modern science: (1) monogenism, which is today thought to be genetically impossible; (2) a distinguishable first human, but under evolutionary view, the transition from proto-human to human is gradual, and hence a first human is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint.
3. It requires that God is vengeful, and punishes children for sins of their parents;
4. It necessitates viewing the Atonement through the lens of the Penal Substitution Theory, which has its own share of problems; i.e. if God is indeed merciful, then why did he go through all that complicated scheme of getting his own son killed, instead of simply forgiving mankind its sins?
5. Original Sin is transmitted through “natural generation”. In modern terms, it means that Original Sin has all the accidents (in Thomistic sense) of a hereditiary / genetic disorder. Can it be linked to a piece of DNA then? What if we edited this part of DNA to clease ourselves of it? Or, will you (ab)use the accidents/substance duality and claim that something which walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck… is not a duck?
6. If you produce a human through IVF / cloning / assembling a human DNA sequence from scratch, this is obviously not “natural generaion”. Is this human tainted with the Original Sin? What is the theological status of IVF / cloned / assembled-from-scratch humans? Soulles? Not fallen, i.e. angelic? Not human?

This, again?

Adam was one man, not a group of men.

biblehub.com/romans/5-17.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[wmw]

Meanwhile real science is having to adjust its genetic theories because an island mouflon population founded by a single pair of individuals has greater genetic diversity than that predicted by their models. Again they have to assign greater power to selection to explain an increase in genetic diversity rather than the expected decrease or genetic drift in this isolated population started from two individuals:

Link: rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1609/527.long

copied from its conclusion:

The quasi-experimental situation and the longitudinal data of the Kerguelen mouflon population allowed us to detect an increase in individual heterozygosity over time. Our results suggest that selection is the likely mechanism responsible for the increase in H in an insular population founded by two individuals.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve’s loss of the state of original holiness is the first tragic result of Adam’s choice to go against the requirements of his being a creature and not the Creator. Being in the state of sanctifying grace and sharing in the life of God are also ways of describing Adam and Eve’s original state of holiness and justice. The Garden of Eden was a peace-filled place.

My apology. I will have to continue responding this evening.

Continued from post 12.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11002641&postcount=12

The reason that the Garden of Eden was a peace-filled place is that it was filled with natural harmony. As long as Adam fulfilled his obligation of obedience to his Creator, he would remain in the “Divine Intimacy” of God. He would not have to suffer or die.

By yielding to the temptation of Satan, Adam’s disobedience ruptured his harmonious relationship with God which meant that Adam’s anatomy would suffer death. His nature was deprived of its original holiness. This state of deprivation is what is transmitted by Adam and Eve to their descendants. Because of the difference between Creator and creature, only a “divine” person could reconcile Adam and descendants with Divinity, God Himself.

When I was a child, we were taught that Adam being human could not open the gates to heaven on his own. That is why the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature so that He had the power of God and at the same time stood in the place of Adam and his descendants. This is still a Catholic teaching.

In order to understand the deeper meanings of Original Sin, we need to connect Christ’s salvific mission with the action of the first human. St. Paul writes: “For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.” Romans 5: 12-21.

We will rise with the risen Jesus Who by dying was victorious over death.

Perhaps it is necessary to move beyond Original Sin and fall in love with our Good Shepherd.

 

[weller2]

This, again?

Adam was one man, not a group of men.

biblehub.com/romans/5-17.htm

All it proves is that Paul believed that Adam was one man.

To use Paul in support of this claim, you’d have to demonstrate that Paul somehow had more information about Eden than we have.

 

[weller2]

Meanwhile real science is having to adjust its genetic theories because an island mouflon population founded by a single pair of individuals has greater genetic diversity than that predicted by their models. Again they have to assign greater power to selection to explain an increase in genetic diversity rather than the expected decrease or genetic drift in this isolated population started from two individuals:

Fascinating. Thanks.

 

[rossum]

1. one must believe that the human race propagated solely out of a single human couple,

This is only possible if we accept the idea of a deceptive God. There are too many variants in common between us and the chimpanzees for such a narrow population bottleneck since we split from out last common ancestor with the chimps.

1. that original sin itself solely spread via a single couple (though they weren’t necessarily the only couple),

Science shows that we are all descended from Mitochondrial Eve, so we are all automatically descended from her parents, any couple among her grandparents and indeed any couple among all her ancestors. The same applies to Y-chromosome Adam’s parents and ancestors. There are a very large number of couples who can serve as ancestors to the entire human race. Science cannot say at which point souls or original sin happened.

1. that all of humanity became tainted with original sin as a result of the temptation from Satan on Adam and Eve, but this original sin was not something spread biologically per se, from parent to child, but still became a part of human spiritual condition from that point forward after the Fall.

Science cannot help you with this one.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by TK421 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
1) one must believe that the human race propagated solely out of a single human couple,

This is only possible if we accept the idea of a deceptive God.

It is totally unnecessary to even think about a deceptive God. It is necessary to learn the facts about the Scientific (Inductive) Method.

While tons of interpretations of this or that scientific research become sound bites and urban myths, the actual philosophy of science is rarely mentioned.

Yes, philosophy.

Check out the Philosophy of Science Association philsci.org/about/index.html

and this paper Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics. Copyright 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association*.*
socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/EmpiricalAdequacy.pdf

From the abstract: In order to judge whether a theory is empirically adequate one must have epistemic access to reliable records of past measurement results that can be compared against the predictions of the theory. The opening paragraph gives the example of testing the empirical adequacy of Copernican astronomy – which, for ordinary folk like this granny, is easier to picture in our mind than quantum mechanics.

Coincidentally, empirical adequacy and reliable records are key components of the Scientific (Inductive) Method itself. And it is precisely, empirical adequacy and reliable records which are currently being ignored by those people who wish to change Catholic doctrines so that they comport with “science.”

Because of the ban on evolution discussion, this general science information will not go into banned theories.

However, those who are familiar with natural science research in general will recognize that the concept of empirical adequacy is the foundation for evidence in research. It is empirical adequacy which, among other things, is seriously evaluated before a research paper is accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal. When researching remote events in pre-human history, the empirical facet includes assumptions and estimates, often reasonable but not objectively provable in all possible circumstances.

In general, scientists are sincere, dedicated researchers. Natural science is a gift from God which benefits society in many ways.

However, when it comes to the human species which is philosophically the pinnacle of creation, actual scientific research of the distant past is restricted to anatomical fossils and possible DNA.

The philosophical approach to humans is free to include the spiritual, in addition to the material, principle of human nature. It is our spiritual, rational nature which lifts us beyond the laboratory microscope. It is precisely our rational nature which presents the possibility of our two, sole primary ancestors. By definition, paleoanthropology for example is focused on the biological aspects of fossils simply because the realm of science is the material/physical world. As Catholicism teaches, we are also part of the spiritual world of God–the same God Who brought the material world into being.

Just because the dedicated scientist cannot examine the spiritual in fossils, it does not indicate that true, fully complete humans did not exist as children of two, true, fully human parents. To the scientist, Adam and Eve may be considered improbable but, in fact, they are not impossible.