Original sin and the natural world

[tomarin]

i’m pretty sure that we catholics don’t interpret the creation story of genesis as a scientific text the way some protestant christians do. but at the same time we don’t see it as “just” a parable, either – there really was an adam and eve, they disobeyed god and were punished for it and as their descendents we suffer the consequences in myriad ways. if we didn’t there would have been no need for christ to redeeem us. all of this we are required to believe.

one of these consequences, as stated in genesis, is that the natural world has turned against us – we have storms, floods, parasites in the rivers, etc. these were not essential parts of god’s plan for creation but a result of adam and eve’s disobedience.

now i’m a firm believer in science and also that science will not contradict faith as they are both part of the same creation. but how am i to interpret this negative transformation of the natural world in a scientific context?

that is, must i believe that the natural world did not contain any predators, storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. before the evolution of the human species?

there appears to be a discrepancy here between faith and reason, yet i thought that that was not possible. what have i got wrong?

 

[buffalo]

Providence and the scandal of evil. [309](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/309.htm’) If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.
[310](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/310.htm’) But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175
[311](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/311.htm’) Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

 

[tomarin]

Providence and the scandal of evil. [309](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/309.htm’) If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.
[310](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/310.htm’) But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175
[311](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/311.htm’) Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

i’m not really concerned so much about moral evil, in this instance; it’s physical evil, to use the phraseology of the catechism, that i’m concerned about.

is it necessary to believe that there was no physical evil before the fall of man? some things that we might think of as physical evil, such as flooding of a river’s banks or a forest fire, might not be intrinsically evil at all and might even be necessary for the natural world to replenish itself.

certainly we would never normally think of a tiger’s killing and eating and antelope to be evil – after the fall, that is.

 

[geekborj]

i’m pretty sure that we catholics don’t interpret the creation story of genesis as a scientific text the way some protestant christians do. but at the same time we don’t see it as “just” a parable, either – there really was an adam and eve, they disobeyed god and were punished for it and as their descendents we suffer the consequences in myriad ways. if we didn’t there would have been no need for christ to redeeem us. all of this we are required to believe.

one of these consequences, as stated in genesis, is that the natural world has turned against us – we have storms, floods, parasites in the rivers, etc. these were not essential parts of god’s plan for creation but a result of adam and eve’s disobedience.

now i’m a firm believer in science and also that science will not contradict faith as they are both part of the same creation. but how am i to interpret this negative transformation of the natural world in a scientific context?

that is, must i believe that the natural world did not contain any predators, storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. before the evolution of the human species?

there appears to be a discrepancy here between faith and reason, yet i thought that that was not possible. what have i got wrong?

The Catholic Faith has nothing against Science. In fact, It even promotes Science. However, a lot of people uses Science beyond its actual area, at this point the Church becomes against it. Read the book “‘In the Beginning…’ a Catholic understanding of Creation and The Fall” by Joseph Ratzinger as translated by B. Ramsey, O.P.

 

[geekborj]

i’m not really concerned so much about moral evil, in this instance; it’s physical evil, to use the phraseology of the catechism, that i’m concerned about.

is it necessary to believe that there was no physical evil before the fall of man? some things that we might think of as physical evil, such as flooding of a river’s banks or a forest fire, might not be intrinsically evil at all and might even be necessary for the natural world to replenish itself.

certainly we would never normally think of a tiger’s killing and eating and antelope to be evil – after the fall, that is.

Evil is defined only as to the purpose. How is “physical evil” defined without “moral evil” along with it? For example, the tiger that killed and ate an antelope is NOT evil because they are designed to act so. Same-sex marriage is evil because the human race is not made to be so. Humans eating animals and plants is not evil as long as it is for eating and improving our human life’s purposes and not for other purposes aside from as “by design.”

 

[Verbum]

Hi Tomarin,

Catholic teaching is that our first parents, before the fall, were protected from physical evil.(Perhaps that is the meaing of the Garden?). It does not state that there were no physical convulsions before,during or after the fall.

Verbum

 

[drpmjhess]

that is, must i believe that the natural world did not contain any predators, storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. before the evolution of the human species?

there appears to be a discrepancy here between faith and reason, yet i thought that that was not possible. what have i got wrong?

Tomarin, nice questions! Life existed on earth for 3.5 billion years before humans evolved, and there was plenty of predation, suffering and earth before humans arrived. Genesis contains wonderful stories borrowed from Ancient Near Eastern neighbors and recrafted by Hebrew scribes into an overarching moral narrative. The Hebrews did this to make sense of the suffering and death they saw around them, which they could not interpret through the lens of evolutionary biology as we do today.

Petrus

 

[CryptoCatholic]

Though most of the Catholic theologians here would not agree with my perspective, I believe that the following is correct, on the point raised in the Opening Post…

Regardless of the history of humankind, the Adam and Eve/Original Sin story is intended by its authors, J and R, to be a hypothetical portraying how humankind would handle every single moral decision if grace had not been made available by God. In other words, it portrays why we needed to be saved by the cross. Thus, the story ends with a prediction that the offspring of the woman, Jesus, would strike at Satan’s head – when the cross impales the dust at “Skull Place” – while Satan impales his “heel” – when the nail goes through Jesus’ feet.

Because we remain free to reject grace, we remain unentitled to a perfect world. So, the world never actually “turned against us.” Tigers were never playfully licking the toes of Adam and Eve. Roaches never restricted themselves to outdoor activities, only. Dangerous germs did not stay away from humans and hide under logs, only. The “world turned against us” concept is nonsense. A girlfriend in college used to say, “Pete, it’s a tough world.” This has never not been true. God knew *in advance of *our creation that humankind without grace was a “sin machine.” Grace is really the “final ingredient.” (That is why, on the cross, the waters of salvation activated by the saving blood of Christ follow Eve out of Christ’s side, in John’s gospel.) God knew that we would be free to reject grace in this life. Therefore, the world in which He placed us was always troublesome and difficult and against us.

Grace and prayer are able to make the world less troublesome, however.