I
ICXCNIKA
Guest
here is the text of the correspondence I’ve had with a priest who has taught one of my diaconate classes. Tell me what you think. (I cut out the superfluous stuff because of length. My email is in blue, his are italicized).
Father G:
First, you state that original sin “…is about the concrete situation of human life and society rather than about some kind of taint or blot passed on biologically throuought human history.” However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . proper to each" (Para. 419). Given what the Catechism says, how best can one understand the way original sin is transmitted (if transmitted is even the right word)?
Second, you ask “was there then an historical Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel? Noah and the flood generation? Builders of the tower of Babel?” And answer, “Not in a literal sense.”
My reading of the Catechism is that it suggests that Adam and Eve were real persons (although perhaps not named Adam and Eve). "All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin…” (Para. 402) And, “Adam and Eve committed a personal sin…” (Para 404). And finally, paragraph 375 calls Adam and Eve “our first parents.”
Perhaps I am reading into the text, but it seems to suggest that Adam and Eve may have been real people because they committed a personal sin and the Catechism calls them “our first parents.” My question is, how should I read the Catechism and understand its sense?
J
*J:
thanks for your note, and you have indeed discovered a problem. Different sections of the Cathechism were written by different people and then sort of stuck together. This produces a number of “tensions in the text,” which in fact were noticed and commented on from the time it first appeared. Perhaps one of the areas where this is most dramatic is in its use of Scripture. In #101-141, it presents a discussion of Scripture which is very good and based pretty squarely on the teachngs of Dei Verbum of Vatican II. Unfortunately, those who wrote some of the sections in systematic theology did not follow these guidelines, and the work of Scripture scholars is largely ignored. What I presented is pretty much a consensus among Catholic (and other) scholars; it is not only my view and it is not new. When I was a student in graduate theology at The Catholic University of America in 1967, I took a graduate seminar on developments in the Catholic teaching on original sin; this section of the Catechism seems either to be unaware of this or chose to ignore it.
As you begin to study theology and scripture in more depth, a lot of the more popular understandings will be challenged…I’ve been teaching for almost 40 years, and this is completely normal and even typical; …but hopefully this moves us to an even deeper understanding of our faith.
Fr. G.
*
Father G:
Your response to my previous email didn’t really address my questions so I will pose only one question and hopefully it will be more succinct. I have a tendency to ramble.
First, you write in the May 2007 issue of “Catholic Update” that Original Sin “…is about the concrete situation of human life and society rather than about some kind of taint or blot passed on biologically throughout human history.” How do you reconcile that statement with the following statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
"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. (para 404).
“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. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)” (para. 406).
J
*Hi,
I understood your question and thought I was answering it, so let me try again.
What you are quoting is the pretty standard understanding of original sin as it developed in the Latin West under the heavy influence of Augustine. [Eastern Christianities never developed it in quite this way.] We have to distinguish the “core of the doctrine” from any particular presentation/development of it. In the light of contemporary biblical interpretation (as repeatedly encouraged by the Church, e.g. Dei Verbum), the part of the traditional understanding that sees Adam and Eve as “historical people who “transmit” something” cannot be maintained. But the core of the doctrine, that the whole human race is in need of redemption, remains. As history eloquently attests, when it comes to development of doctrine, the official statements are the last to reflect it…which is the way it should be.
*
Father G:
First, you state that original sin “…is about the concrete situation of human life and society rather than about some kind of taint or blot passed on biologically throuought human history.” However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . proper to each" (Para. 419). Given what the Catechism says, how best can one understand the way original sin is transmitted (if transmitted is even the right word)?
Second, you ask “was there then an historical Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel? Noah and the flood generation? Builders of the tower of Babel?” And answer, “Not in a literal sense.”
My reading of the Catechism is that it suggests that Adam and Eve were real persons (although perhaps not named Adam and Eve). "All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin…” (Para. 402) And, “Adam and Eve committed a personal sin…” (Para 404). And finally, paragraph 375 calls Adam and Eve “our first parents.”
Perhaps I am reading into the text, but it seems to suggest that Adam and Eve may have been real people because they committed a personal sin and the Catechism calls them “our first parents.” My question is, how should I read the Catechism and understand its sense?
J
*J:
thanks for your note, and you have indeed discovered a problem. Different sections of the Cathechism were written by different people and then sort of stuck together. This produces a number of “tensions in the text,” which in fact were noticed and commented on from the time it first appeared. Perhaps one of the areas where this is most dramatic is in its use of Scripture. In #101-141, it presents a discussion of Scripture which is very good and based pretty squarely on the teachngs of Dei Verbum of Vatican II. Unfortunately, those who wrote some of the sections in systematic theology did not follow these guidelines, and the work of Scripture scholars is largely ignored. What I presented is pretty much a consensus among Catholic (and other) scholars; it is not only my view and it is not new. When I was a student in graduate theology at The Catholic University of America in 1967, I took a graduate seminar on developments in the Catholic teaching on original sin; this section of the Catechism seems either to be unaware of this or chose to ignore it.
As you begin to study theology and scripture in more depth, a lot of the more popular understandings will be challenged…I’ve been teaching for almost 40 years, and this is completely normal and even typical; …but hopefully this moves us to an even deeper understanding of our faith.
Fr. G.
*
Father G:
Your response to my previous email didn’t really address my questions so I will pose only one question and hopefully it will be more succinct. I have a tendency to ramble.
First, you write in the May 2007 issue of “Catholic Update” that Original Sin “…is about the concrete situation of human life and society rather than about some kind of taint or blot passed on biologically throughout human history.” How do you reconcile that statement with the following statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
"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. (para 404).
“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. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)” (para. 406).
J
*Hi,
I understood your question and thought I was answering it, so let me try again.
What you are quoting is the pretty standard understanding of original sin as it developed in the Latin West under the heavy influence of Augustine. [Eastern Christianities never developed it in quite this way.] We have to distinguish the “core of the doctrine” from any particular presentation/development of it. In the light of contemporary biblical interpretation (as repeatedly encouraged by the Church, e.g. Dei Verbum), the part of the traditional understanding that sees Adam and Eve as “historical people who “transmit” something” cannot be maintained. But the core of the doctrine, that the whole human race is in need of redemption, remains. As history eloquently attests, when it comes to development of doctrine, the official statements are the last to reflect it…which is the way it should be.
*
