Hey, Bob!
I wouldn’t really say we are responsible, but here is a Ukrainian Catechism’s response to this question:
The garden is back in time. That spinning sword keeps us out. No going back, good buddy.
The tendency to sin is expressed objectively rather than subjectively. This is important because sin remains harmful even if the act or omission is not intended to be so. Scandal is given both intentionally and unintentionally.
Whether one sees a conflict would depend upon one’s paradigm. For a Catholic, perspective, one would embrace the teaching of the Church that humans are inclined to sin, due to concupiscence.
The strength of the inclinations are affected by spiritual maturity and disciplines. If one feeds the inclination toward evil, it becomes stronger. If one feeds the desire to follow God, it will become stronger.
That would depend upon how one defines “human nature”.
Our “natural human capacities” are part of God’s creation, but concupiscence draws us under the power of them in such a way that we are oriented toward sin and away from holiness.
The framework seems to be suitable to deny the doctrine of concupiscence in that it replaces the “major inclination” away from God with a “major inclination” that somehow human thinking about what is “best” is stronger than the human tendency toward sin.
If passions and appetites are “not of God’s nature”, does that mean our need for them to survive and thrive is also “not of God’s nature”?
And indeed, nothing can separate us from His love. This is a major difference between Jewish/Catholic theology and Calvanism, because Calvanism teaches that our relationship is not just wounded/lacking, but that we are separated to the point where we cannot even seek Him. That is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.
You asked if the position could be within the boundaries of Catholic faith, then when told it was not, are trying to support that it is. It seems like you want this position to be Catholic.
Do you have an Catholic source, such as Scripture or catechism, that will support this assertion?
You have inserted a new standard into the discussion. Rather than using the Church’s standard, you are re-creating the standard to be about man doing what man thinks is best.
Altered how?
It puts as the standard the human desire to do good, which is flawed. As Jesus said, there is only One who is good.
Adam and Eve were created with Divine Revelation already within, from which they were separated at the Fall, so now humans are born deprived of it.
The Church teaches that both things are true. We have a sin nature, referred to in Scripture as “the flesh” that competes with the Spiritual nature, which yearns for God and the doing of good.
What you seem to be saying here is that the Catholic Church has a “lower opinion of humanity” than those who embrace Humanism as a philosophical paradigm. You have classified the “stain” as a “negative value”, where a “higher” or more positive value would be that human beings are not born with any “stain” and that humans have the desire to do good, but are capable of falling short.
So we are “kicked out of the garden of Eden”? It is hard for us to even know what it was like for them to lose the state in which they were created, since we have not had it.
I think you are saying that God has been unjust. You also seem to be saying that God acts contrary to reason, since there is evidence an injustice occurred, but God has ignored that. It seems like quite a cynical concept of God.
It says a lot about a person when they perceive themselves as punished, rather than graced. In the liturgy, it is referred to as “oh necessary sin of Adam”, for we are now able to acquire through grace freedom from all punishment, and grace to endure the pains of this life with joy and peace, rather than victims with no hope.
It is certainly a consequence to us, created by the choices of our first parents. But Jesus was clear the Kingdom of Heaven is for NOW, in this life, as well as the next. There is nothing holding us back from entering that Kingdom except ourselves. Some people refuse to go in.
Such a paradigm, in addition to representing a victim mentality and pessimism, completely leaves out God’s plan to rescue us, in which we are made free of all sins, all slavery, and are able to walk in grace without punishment. It is like looking at only one side of a coin.
He took care of it all, Bob. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.
This is clearly false, as Adam and Eve were not created with an inclination to sin. They chose to disobey God, and inherited the consequences all while they were still in the Garden of Eden. Being created in a state of original justice (right relationship with God) does not prevent us from free will, and the consequences of choosing to sin.
Such a statement is inconsistent with the Catholic faith.
Not by anyone who is Catholic, at least.
You seem to be saying that the punishment of concupiscence is inconsistent with an “omnibenevolent creator”. You have described God’s love as being even more expansive than the love we have for one another as human beings. If you would not punish your child with concupiscence, then, surely God would not.
This is problematic if one is trying to support the position that no one every knowingly and willingly rejects God.
This notion is problematic to the premise that all sin occurs because of blindness and ignorance, so if a person could see the value of others, one would not deliberately sin. Therefore the ignorance and blindness relieves one of all culpability.
And yet man, once the age of accountability is reached at least, inevitably sins. Where does this predisposition come from? Why is sin so universal? Why would anyone, ever, sin??? Why would anyone, ever, compromise the truth with the tiniest white lie? Why do people commit wrong knowing full well that it is or may well be…wrong?? What is at the heart of this anomaly of nature? Do you recognize an innocence lost in humanity? Something that should not be-or should be otherwise?
Hi Vico,
Yes I know of humans who make choices because the choice is sinful.
Those who disagree with you must not have understood your point?
Indeed, the arrogance that the human can know what is best for himself is exactly the kind of hubris involved in the events of the Fall. And seen in that account,such hubris has grave consequences. Were it not for the manifestation of such hubris prior to the Fall, one might concluded that it is a consequence thereof.
This is very well done, OS, especially with regard to setting up that “slippery slope” you referred to earlier.
Actually I do. I have encountered a great many people who seem quite eager to distinguish themselves through wrongdoing.
By all means, be open to a more Humanistic approach! One that places humanity, human goodness, and human wisdom above that of the Creator.
I don’t think you will find the Pope supporting that we jettison basic doctrines of the faith, such as concupiscence.
Good Morning, Vico
Did you mean that they make choices because the choice is what they desire? If you know of humans who make choices because the choice is sinful, please provide an example.
I think concupiscense is such a doctrine. But we can also add that the entire New Testament is a collection of Catholic books, written by, for, and about Catholics.
I think it’s more accurate to say that a person is drawn to do what he perceives to be the greatest good, at least at the moment he commits the act. It’s not necessarily as if he’s made a full assessment of the act as being right or wrong and then chosen the “best” moral path. Nor is it generally true that he’s pulled willy-nilly into committing a sin, as though he’s a morally irresponsible beast, unavoidably overwhelmed by desire.Good Morning, Vico
Yes, we have covered this. Concupiscence is “strong desire”, and desire effects our ability to reason.
You added the word “morally” to the statement I made, which changes it. When I stated this:
“Humans are inclined to do what they think is best, but are capable of sin.”
The “best” was not necessarily the morally best, but merely what the person thinks is best. As soon as we add the word “morally”, we might assume that the person has a developed conscience and is aware in the moment to engage their conscience (their conscience is not altered by passion, etc). On the other hand, a person may be always doing what they think is morally best, but because their conscience is extremely undeveloped, there is little to show for such inclination to do what they think is morally best. A person of undeveloped conscience reasons: “What is morally best is what satisfies my wants and desires, I am looking out for number one. That is morality.” Do you see, Vico? This person is doing what he thinks is best.
I can’t see yet where you have presented something that denies that the human does what he thinks is best. Did I miss it? Yes, the human has strong desires, which motivate a person to do what may be wrong. However, even though the person does what may be wrong, he in the moment will be reasoning (if he is operating under any reason at all) that what he is doing is best. The inclination (capacity) to sin is there, but the greater inclination is to do what he thinks is best.
It is through Christ that we come to see that what is best is what is objectively, morally best, correct? To do what is morally best, in a truly merciful, loving way, becomes our greatest desire.
Did you mean that they make choices because the choice is what they desire? If you know of humans who make choices because the choice is sinful, please provide an example.
Thanks for your response.
Which, because of concupiscence, is strongly influenced by our desires/fleshly passions.
I think you are right about the impact of the underdeveloped conscience on moral choices, but I am not sure that always equates to a person doing what he thinks is best. People can make a poor moral choice, and be able still say “I know I should have…” which demonstrates that they have knowlege but chose contrary to it.
Yes. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
That is just the sticking point, though, is it not? People do not always follow reasoning, or only listen to in partially, and make decisions based on the passions. People make such choices even knowing they are not “good”, but they do it anyway.
This statement is not consistent with Catholic faith. A “capacity” is quite different than an “inclination”. Further, only those who have advanced in sanctity have a greater inclination to do what they think is best, because they have learned to conquer the control of the passions. Those who have not attained to such sanctity will always be pulled toward thinking that it is best to satisfy desire.
Yes, this is the goal of sanctification.
One only need look at the police blotter. I actually met someone who called himself a Satanist who told me that his mission in life was to make Christians as miserable as possible. The more sinful he could be toward them, the better it served Satan’s purposes. Perhaps you think that people like this don’t exist?
SinGood Morning, Vico
Yes, we have covered this. Concupiscence is “strong desire”, and desire effects our ability to reason.
You added the word “morally” to the statement I made, which changes it. When I stated this:
“Humans are inclined to do what they think is best, but are capable of sin.”
The “best” was not necessarily the morally best, but merely what the person thinks is best. As soon as we add the word “morally”, we might assume that the person has a developed conscience and is aware in the moment to engage their conscience (their conscience is not altered by passion, etc). On the other hand, a person may be always doing what they think is morally best, but because their conscience is extremely undeveloped, there is little to show for such inclination to do what they think is morally best. A person of undeveloped conscience reasons: “What is morally best is what satisfies my wants and desires, I am looking out for number one. That is morality.” Do you see, Vico? This person is doing what he thinks is best.
I can’t see yet where you have presented something that denies that the human does what he thinks is best. Did I miss it? Yes, the human has strong desires, which motivate a person to do what may be wrong. However, even though the person does what may be wrong, he in the moment will be reasoning (if he is operating under any reason at all) that what he is doing is best. The inclination (capacity) to sin is there, but the greater inclination is to do what he thinks is best.
It is through Christ that we come to see that what is best is what is objectively, morally best, correct? To do what is morally best, in a truly merciful, loving way, becomes our greatest desire.
Did you mean that they make choices because the choice is what they desire? If you know of humans who make choices because the choice is sinful, please provide an example.
Thanks for your response.
No personal sin with responsibility, but born with the death of the soul which is the same state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault. Imputed guilt rather than fault guilt.
St. Augustine was uncertain on this issue (see: letter 167 to Evodius). He thought that at least Adam, the prophets and the patriarchs and some others that were just would be free.
And neither do I. I don’t say we are responsible either.
Correct. Christ didn’t resolve this issue.