Original Sin question

[guanophore]

OhmyGOSH, yes! That is a perfect example.

These men should be held culpable for their choice to kill the Eternal Logos.

They had enough evidence, “if today you hear his voice, harden not your heart”, yet chose to act anyway.

They had the knowledge.

And they willingly chose to do the worst act of humanity that was ever committed: deicide.

Let’s not drag that topic into this thread! It has already been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt in another thread. that the people that crucified Christ did not know any better.

Would you mind first answering the question I posed earlier?

Is there a particular moral or spiritual issue where you feel personally one particular way, but that Christ and His Church has declared it to be another way?

PR your answer can be found here:

Good Morning, Vico

Yes, we have covered this earlier. You have done an excellent job of presenting the claim that people have an inclination to do evil, that we have the capacity to do evil. I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.

The claim of concupiscence does not adequately explain human experience and an alternative observation should be given precedence over it.

There is plenty of room in the Church for different approaches to this. You do an excellent job of presenting one approach, and I continue to respect and honor your efforts.

What the Genesis account gives about the nature and effects of original in can be understood from different approaches. One approach would be that it was the writer’s way of telling the members of the tribe the importance of obedience.

Well, an option is to not take the creation story literally. One can look at the purpose of the story of Adam and Eve…once we break away from the literal, we can give ourselves the freedom (within limits, of course) to speculate and reinterpret. We can address options that do not tie us to interpretations that appear to give a cruel or sinister image of God.

The story was framed in such a way that humans are punished for disobedience. In the context of the tribal existence, obedience to authority was truly a matter of survival of the tribe, and God wanted the tribe to survive.

It can be seen as a story intended to support the survival of the Chosen People.

 

[OneSheep]

Also, from birth, mankind is inclined to sin and this is called concupiscence, which means the what a person thinks is good is sin.

Yes, sometimes this is the case, my point too. I think that what Pope Francis is doing in the world is good, though, and that is not sin.

 

[guanophore]

No, no. It is a confirmed teaching of the Catholic Church that the inclination is to sin, since the fall, and we are born into that state. There is no greater inclination to do good, rather there is grace, the totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim, and God given charisms which do not represent inclinations but grace. Grace includes, among other things, such blessings as miraculous gifts of prophecy or of healing and the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

Certainly this is one way of understanding it, but it does not rule out other perspectives.

If we can see God as one who is merciful, and who loves and forgives unconditionally, then we too can adopt this mindset toward others. A loving God like this would never “punish” His creation by giving him concupiscence.

… a person who unconditionally loves and forgives is going to want to see some options on the definition and/or doctrine of original sin?

Unconditional forgiveness is the key aspect that contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin

There must be a way to reconcile these legitimate differences so that they do not appear to be contradictory.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for responding.

And I think this answer speaks volumes.

I do think that if a person claims to be a follower of Christ but cannot “think of, right off the bat” an example, then it’s entirely warranted to assert that this person’s religion comes from his own personal views, rather than from Christ and His Church.

This may sting a bit, and I apologize for this, but sometimes, one needs to be inoculated with the truth. And one cannot deny that injections sting a bit! :sad_yes:

PR, that seems harsh. Even the Pope has said that we must make room for legitimate differences.

" Our fraternal encounter today is a new and necessary step on the journey towards the unity to which only the Holy Spirit can lead us, that of communion in legitimate diversity." Pope Francis

When God reveals Himself to a person, they are obligated through their conscience to follow what has been revealed, even if it seems contrary to the prevailing notions.

Good Morning, Vico

. I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.

I continue to stand by St. Augustine’s claim: “Through the Spirit we see that whatever exists in any way is good”. There is plenty of room in the Church for different approaches to this.

Augustine’s approach to the “free choice of the will” assumes that “there can be no denying that we have a will.” Instead, Augustine defines “good will” as “a will by which we seek to live a good and upright life and to attain unto perfect wisdom” which, of course, assumes that it is free. This is worth meditating on while considering the literal Latin translation of the first two are not meant for “stuff,” but rather for God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes this, saying, “Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude.” (1711).

The alternative view is that the human desire to have a good will, which seeks to live a good and upright life, is more powerful than the tendency to sin.

Hi Vico,

Do you have doctrine that states that we do not have a greater inclination to do what we think is good?

There is no Catholic Doctrine that states we do not have a greater inclination to do what we think is good, and Augustine affirms that human beings have this “good will”.

What seems to be missing here is not everyone is equating the deisre to do what one thinks is good with an inclination to do to good.

Are you familiar with phenomenology? I have a cursory understanding, and I think there are some good concepts to incorporate. It has to do with “taking people from where they are.”

This will be a very helpful perspective for persons who seem to have a one sided view about original sin. Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

When we look at all of scripture and Church teaching through the lens of our own personal experence of God as an unconditionally loving and forgiving Creator, then all of our percetptions will change accordingly.

… when God’s actions appear to the individual less than benevolent, it is worthwhile to come to an understanding that upholds His benevolence. The individual witnesses an unexplained violence or contradiction to Love, and assertions do not serve to resolve the problem. The “inevitability” question is a benevolence question. It is also an anthropological question.

Would a benevolent and unconditionally loving God punish His creatures with concupiscence?

 

[Vico]

Yes, sometimes this is the case, my point too. I think that what Pope Francis is doing in the world is good, though, and that is not sin.

Well that is not what I mean, rather with grace, as mentioned in one or more of my prior posts, concupiscence is overcome.

 

[Vico]

Certainly this is one way of understanding it, but it does not rule out other perspectives.

If we can see God as one who is merciful, and who loves and forgives unconditionally, then we too can adopt this mindset toward others. A loving God like this would never “punish” His creation by giving him concupiscence.

There must be a way to reconcile these legitimate differences so that they do not appear to be contradictory.

Magisterial teachings of faith and morals are to be accepted by the faithful, and this is such a matter. Remission of sin requires repentance on the part of the sinner.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Remission of Sin, Definition

The true and actual forgiveness of sin. When mortal sin is remitted, this includes pardon of the eternal punishment due to it, but temporal penalty may still remain. When venial sin is remitted, the guilt is removed and as much of the temporal punishment as the person’s dispositions warrant from the grace of God.

 

[fhansen]

Certainly this is one way of understanding it, but it does not rule out other perspectives.

If we can see God as one who is merciful, and who loves and forgives unconditionally, then we too can adopt this mindset toward others. A loving God like this would never “punish” His creation by giving him concupiscence.

There must be a way to reconcile these legitimate differences so that they do not appear to be contradictory.

Those are good points to consider IMO. Concupiscence is the “natural” outcome of creation-of man-no longer being subjugated to/in communion with God. Loss of self-mastery or control comes about when the moral navigation point, our Creator, is no longer the reference for our bearings. This is not merely a conscious relationship first of all but rather it is an intimate *spiritual *one to begin. Once Adam consciously breached his relationship with God, something HUGE was lost. By trying to gain more control in the moral sphere man actually lost control. This is why man’s freedom is said to be found only in God; we’re lost without Him. And this rupture in communion is only partially healed in this life, BTW, by degrees, compared to the next life where we’ll see Him “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12).

Either way I believe God’s love can be unconditional while our state of justice can nonetheless be conditioned on our acceptance of His love, which includes His forgiveness. He who is forgiven much, loves much (Luke 7:47). That love, that justice, is expected to blossom and grow in us, transforming us into His image. But if we won’t comply at all, if we won’t accept goodness and love as our overarching values, cherishing selfishness and pride and their offspring: sin, instead, then we stay outside the kingdom. This is why Scripture says that no sinners enter heaven. Should beheaders, pedophiles, and rapists gain entrance?

God’s endeavoring to produce something in us, something very, very, good- drawing us, without force, into authentic righteousness where our own true good -and unfathomable happiness- lie. This is a *work *of His, which He’s patient at performing, but we can always reject His plan, His will, at any step along the way.

 

[guanophore]

Magisterial teachings of faith and morals are to be accepted by the faithful, and this is such a matter. Remission of sin requires repentance on the part of the sinner.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Remission of Sin, Definition

The true and actual forgiveness of sin. When mortal sin is remitted, this includes pardon of the eternal punishment due to it, but temporal penalty may still remain. When venial sin is remitted, the guilt is removed and as much of the temporal punishment as the person’s dispositions warrant from the grace of God.

Yes, of course.

There is more than one legitimate way of addressing these issues.

One is not less “Catholic” if one sees it difrerently!

When it comes down to it, our understanding of God is always a result of psychological projection.

I would like to add a bit of psychological perspective.  Given that God's judgement, personality, and other attributes are a matter of projection *(There is no escaping it.  Even if I try to see the world from God's point of view, it is still me seeing the world from God's point of view*), the God I know personally will be the God I project.

God always accepts us, always forgives us. He has already forgiven us as we wait to go into the confessional. It is our experience that changes - we feel forgiven, and then we experience forgiveness. Then we can see God as unconditionally forgiving.

 

[kdbueno]

Original sin propagates what is right.

 

[OneSheep]

What you posted before, and that I answered to, is “I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.”

What you ask in that last post is a different question, answered already.

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.) – Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 236.

And from Council of Trent, Session 6:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

Good Morning, Friend

Yes, Vico, thank you. All we have comes from God. Grace is a free gift.

None of this says that man does not have a greater inclination, by nature, to do good. Now, it may well be that His grace is so pervasive that grace appears to have entered human nature itself, and I am under the illusion that His grace has been so given. In that case, (we might have to work on/modify the definition of grace) I would need to see or be presented an example of a person who has not been given such grace.

Instead, Vico, what I am talking about has nothing to do with grace, I think. Human nature is itself a gift, and what I am observing is that people have a greater inclination, by nature, to do what they think is good.

And, as you can see, none of what I am saying here is “against the theme” of a just God. In fact, is not our Lord justice so great in that He has inclined us to do what we think is good?

God Bless, and thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

Original sin propagates what is right.

Hi

Can you clarify? Give an example?

 

[OneSheep]

I do think that if a person claims to be a follower of Christ but cannot “think of, right off the bat” an example, then it’s entirely warranted to assert that this person’s religion comes from his own personal views, rather than from Christ and His Church.

This may sting a bit, and I apologize for this, but sometimes, one needs to be inoculated with the truth. And one cannot deny that injections sting a bit! :sad_yes:

Hi PR,

My conscience is fine, so no sting at all! Yes it is “warranted” to assert what you said, because it is coming from your vocabulary and experience of the world, but it still makes some assumptions; which we all make, right?

I hope you get a chance to work on my post 318.

Thanks, your heart is in the right place!

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, Friend

Yes, Vico, thank you. All we have comes from God. Grace is a free gift.

None of this says that man does not have a greater inclination, by nature, to do good. Now, it may well be that His grace is so pervasive that grace appears to have entered human nature itself, and I am under the illusion that His grace has been so given. In that case, (we might have to work on/modify the definition of grace) I would need to see or be presented an example of a person who has not been given such grace.

Instead, Vico, what I am talking about has nothing to do with grace, I think. Human nature is itself a gift, and what I am observing is that people have a greater inclination, by nature, to do what they think is good.

And, as you can see, none of what I am saying here is “against the theme” of a just God. In fact, is not our Lord justice so great in that He has inclined us to do what we think is good?

God Bless, and thank you.

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Catholics clearly can read the Genesis account figuratively. Adam and Eve are not themselves really the “source of sin”, becuase they were created in the image and likeness of God. Their desire is always to choose the good, just as ours is today.

“When the woman saw that the tree was **good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable **to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.…” Gen 3:5

Their thoughts and desires were for what is right and good. They ate they fruit because they were inclined toward the good.

 

[guanophore]

Hi PR,

My conscience is fine, so no sting at all! Yes it is “warranted” to assert what you said, because it is coming from your vocabulary and experience of the world, but it still makes some assumptions; which we all make, right?

Thanks, your heart is in the right place!

PR certainly has a right to her opinion in observing that someones religion comes from one’s own vocabulary and experience in the world, rather than from Christ and HIs Church.

Alll of our opinions can be said to come from our own vocabulary and experience in teh world, and are based on assumptions. A person cannot understand God apart from one’s own experiences and sense of meaning. This is why phenomenology can help us to understand religion. It describes a way of knowing through our own being in the world.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes–they did not know that he was God, because they heard his voice and hardened their hearts.

But hear his voice they did.

Each of us has been given what we need to distinguish.

That we choose to create our own truths is where we are culpable.

And yet he conformed his views to Christs.

Hi PR,

Yes, we all have the capacity to distinguish if we know what we are doing.

Yes, they heard his voice, and their hearts were hardened. If the hardening of hearts was in itself part of the decision to crucify Christ, we know that those who made such a choice to harden their hearts did not know what they were doing (whether or not the choice was actually pondered, vs simple reactions) .

Culpability, by Catholic definition, involves “sufficient awareness”. If we are lacking in such awareness, we are not culpable, just as Jesus observed from the cross. Of course, if “culpability” means simply a designation of who took what action, then the crowd was certainly culpable.

As far as St. Paul conforming his views to Christ, today’s second reading is wonderful, as it also ties what Vico posted about “justification”:

Gal 2:16, 19-21
Brothers and sisters:
We who know that a person is not justified by works of the law
but through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus
that we may be justified by faith in Christ
and not by works of the law,
because by works of the law no one will be justified.
For through the law I died to the law,
that I might live for God.
I have been crucified with Christ;
yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me;
insofar as I now live in the flesh,
I live by faith in the Son of God
who has loved me and given himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God;
for if justification comes through the law,
then Christ died for nothing.

Of course, the question begged here is “what is Justification?” Another great question: “Does it occur in Catholicism that ‘justification by works of the law’ is essentially the same as ‘justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings’?” If justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings distracts from “living by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me”, which is possible, then there may be some thematic issues there, right?

My focus in the above paragraph is words. We are so very limited to words on the forum, where it is more difficult to communicate love. For example, what is the attitude of each person posting? What is our body language? What is our mood? Are we being welcoming and embracing, or are we being insular and condemning?

Keep me in check, PR. If I ever sound the least bit unwelcoming, let me know!

 

[fhansen]

Hi PR,

Yes, we all have the capacity to distinguish if we know what we are doing.

Yes, they heard his voice, and their hearts were hardened. If the hardening of hearts was in itself part of the decision to crucify Christ, we know that those who made such a choice to harden their hearts did not know what they were doing (whether or not the choice was actually pondered, vs simple reactions) .

Culpability, by Catholic definition, involves “sufficient awareness”. If we are lacking in such awareness, we are not culpable, just as Jesus observed from the cross. Of course, if “culpability” means simply a designation of who took what action, then the crowd was certainly culpable.

As far as St. Paul conforming his views to Christ, today’s second reading is wonderful, as it also ties what Vico posted about “justification”:

Gal 2:16, 19-21
Brothers and sisters:
We who know that a person is not justified by works of the law
but through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus
that we may be justified by faith in Christ
and not by works of the law,
because by works of the law no one will be justified.
For through the law I died to the law,
that I might live for God.
I have been crucified with Christ;
yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me;
insofar as I now live in the flesh,
I live by faith in the Son of God
who has loved me and given himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God;
for if justification comes through the law,
then Christ died for nothing.

Of course, the question begged here is “what is Justification?” Another great question: “Does it occur in Catholicism that ‘justification by works of the law’ is essentially the same as ‘justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings’?” If justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings distracts from “living by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me”, which is possible, then there may be some thematic issues there, right?

My focus in the above paragraph is words. We are so very limited to words on the forum, where it is more difficult to communicate love. For example, what is the attitude of each person posting? What is our body language? What is our mood? Are we being welcoming and embracing, or are we being insular and condemning?

Keep me in check, PR. If I ever sound the least bit unwelcoming, let me know!

Hi, OneSheep. To follow up some on your points here, yes, in Catholic understanding of the faith man is morally responsible; He can be *very *culpable for his sin depending on circumstances. Culpability necessarily means that redemption is *not *merely about getting off the hook for sin. The law can justify exactly no one, and yet we’re bound to adhere to it.

This means, then, that we’re morally bound to cooperate with the grace won for us by Jesus; we’re morally bound, by* justice*, to accept God’s mercy, and be changed by it. **“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” **Matt 6:14-15

*We’re bound to love. * That’s how we’re justified, and the the side-effect is that the law also happens to be fulfilled. (Rom 13:8)

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Friend

Yes, Vico, thank you. All we have comes from God. Grace is a free gift.

None of this says that man does not have a greater inclination, by nature, to do good. Now, it may well be that His grace is so pervasive that grace appears to have entered human nature itself, and I am under the illusion that His grace has been so given. In that case, (we might have to work on/modify the definition of grace) I would need to see or be presented an example of a person who has not been given such grace.

Instead, Vico, what I am talking about has nothing to do with grace, I think. Human nature is itself a gift, and what I am observing is that people have a greater inclination, by nature, to do what they think is good.

And, as you can see, none of what I am saying here is “against the theme” of a just God. In fact, is not our Lord justice so great in that He has inclined us to do what we think is good?

God Bless, and thank you.

But the Church teaches that people do not have a greater inclination, by the fallen nature which they are born with, to do what is morally good. What people think is good, by fallen nature, that is, without the help of grace, is sin. He originally inclined us to do good (not merely what we think is good) before the fall, by the giving of grace. In His mercy he also gives us that now, through the Church in the sacraments.

Catechism

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.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

My conscience is fine, so no sting at all! Yes it is “warranted” to assert what you said, because it is coming from your vocabulary and experience of the world, but it still makes some assumptions; which we all make, right?

I hope you get a chance to work on my post 318.

Thanks, your heart is in the right place!

It is a conclusion based on LOGIC, One Sheep, is it not?

That is: if God exists, then LOGIC DICTATES that His views are going to diverge from your personal views.

And if there’s not a single moral/spiritual/doctrinal issue which you’ve had to conform your views to…

and instead say, “God just happens to agree with everything I personally believe!”…

then one is worshipping at the altar of the almighty Self rather than the Almighty.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, the question begged here is “what is Justification?” Another great question: “Does it occur in Catholicism that ‘justification by works of the law’ is essentially the same as ‘justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings’?” If justification by conformity to the words of Catholic teachings distracts from “living by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me”, which is possible, then there may be some thematic issues there, right?

Yes, Catholic teaching can be very much like “works of the Law” and distracts from “living by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given up Himself for me”. Our perception of who God is, and how we experience Him personallly is paramount. We always need to act in accordance with our conscience, even if that does not seem to conform to all the words of the Catholic teachings.

But the Church teaches that people do not have a greater inclination, by the fallen nature which they are born with, to do what is morally good. What people think is good, by fallen nature, that is, without the help of grace, is sin. He originally inclined us to do good (not merely what we think is good) before the fall, by the giving of grace. In His mercy he also gives us that now, through the Church in the sacraments.

Catechism

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.

You do a great job of expounding this view, Vico, but there are other ways of understanding human nature that are also within the boundaries of Catholic faith. There is nothing in doctrine that says the inclination to do good is not stronger than the inclination to do evil. St. Augustine writes that human beings desire and want the good, as does St. Paul.

It is a conclusion based on LOGIC, One Sheep, is it not?

That is: if God exists, then LOGIC DICTATES that His views are going to diverge from your personal views.

And if there’s not a single moral/spiritual/doctrinal issue which you’ve had to conform your views to…

and instead say, “God just happens to agree with everything I personally believe!”…

then one is worshipping at the altar of the almighty Self rather than the Almighty.

But how we see God is based on our own perceptions and experiences. We cannot conceive God apart from our own selves. Even our LOGIC is a gift from God. What is so wrong with a God that happens to agree with everything I personally believe? Doesnt’ this just means that my Self is in conformity with how God has revealed Himself in our conscience?

 

[Vico]

Yes, Catholic teaching can be very much like “works of the Law” and distracts from “living by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given up Himself for me”. Our perception of who God is, and how we experience Him personallly is paramount. We always need to act in accordance with our conscience, even if that does not seem to conform to all the words of the Catholic teachings.

You do a great job of expounding this view, Vico, but there are other ways of understanding human nature that are also within the boundaries of Catholic faith. There is nothing in doctrine that says the inclination to do good is not stronger than the inclination to do evil. St. Augustine writes that human beings desire and want the good, as does St. Paul.

But how we see God is based on our own perceptions and experiences. We cannot conceive God apart from our own selves. Even our LOGIC is a gift from God. What is so wrong with a God that happens to agree with everything I personally believe? Doesnt’ this just means that my Self is in conformity with how God has revealed Himself in our conscience?

Overall, but not necessarily in a particular instance, the inclination to do evil is stronger than the inclination to do good, in the fallen state of man, and this is dogma. For it is taught in the dogma on the transmission of original sin to all mankind (which includes the loss of the gift of integrity) and that:

• For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary.

And

• For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required.