Original Sin question

[PRmerger]

What is so wrong with a God that happens to agree with everything I personally believe?

That seems contrary to reality, doesn’t it?

God simply could not have created a world in which every view I have is the same as what has been decreed by God.

“I think that as long as you love someone, sex with that person is fine!”
And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!)

“I think that it’s too legalistic to demand that folks go to Mass every Sunday!”
*And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!) *

“I think that as long as you’re a good person, what religion you follow doesn’t matter!”
*And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!) *

Doesnt’ this just means that my Self is in conformity with how God has revealed Himself in our conscience?

Sure…AFTER one has disciplined himself to change his views towards God.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning PR,

God’s views do not diverge from my personal views because my personal views are based on God’s views, as experienced from doctrine and relationship.

So, please, can we stop making this discussion about me and instead about the topic? My last post to you concerning this was no. 318. Do you want to continue, or has your enthusiasm for investigating the topic waned?

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

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.

Well, it can definitely occur such that a person who by nature does what he thinks is best also happens to be the moral best. Again, the Church has not explicitly stated that man does not have a greater inclination to do what he thinks is good.

Are you saying that a Catholic is required to believe that people are more inclined to sin than they are inclined to do good?

What people think is good, by fallen nature, that is, without the help of grace, is sin.

I have already addressed this in post 329:

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.

 

[OneSheep]

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)

Hi Fhansen,

The words of Pope Francis in my signature also reflect what I was taught by the priest who taught our scripture study.

I may have explained this before, but what the priest said is that God Always Forgives. What Matt 6:14-15 refers to is our own experience of God’s forgiveness, that if and when we do not forgive others, we will be incapable of experiencing God’s forgiveness in a real way.

We must not forget “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” and Jesus’ forgiveness, from the cross, those who had not forgiven Him. I look at the cross as the “bottom line” on the matter, fhansen. “Father forgive them” were his last words before death concerning forgiveness, and since Jesus “grew in wisdom”, we can take those last words as the most wise expression and example of God’s forgiveness.

I am not saying that what you presented is not Catholic, not at all. I am saying that there is room for both approaches in the Church. I am not saying what you presented is wrong or against teachings in any way, but truly supports doctrine and is supported by doctrine.

God Bless your day!

 

[fhansen]

Hi Fhansen,

The words of Pope Francis in my signature also reflect what I was taught by the priest who taught our scripture study.

I may have explained this before, but what the priest said is that God Always Forgives. What Matt 6:14-15 refers to is our own experience of God’s forgiveness, that if and when we do not forgive others, we will be incapable of experiencing God’s forgiveness in a real way.

We must not forget “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” and Jesus’ forgiveness, from the cross, those who had not forgiven Him. I look at the cross as the “bottom line” on the matter, fhansen. “Father forgive them” were his last words before death concerning forgiveness, and since Jesus “grew in wisdom”, we can take those last words as the most wise expression and example of God’s forgiveness.

I am not saying that what you presented is not Catholic, not at all. I am saying that there is room for both approaches in the Church. I am not saying what you presented is wrong or against teachings in any way, but truly supports doctrine and is supported by doctrine.

God Bless your day!

Ok. But no approach can leave out man’s responsibility, our need to do our part. This is exactly what God covets in us:* our willingness*; our justice stems from Him-and yet it simultaneously stems from our willingness to embrace it. Justice has a definition, the most concise of which is summed up by the greatest commandments. This is not merely a demand; this is what makes us right, this constitutes whatever can be good and true about us. The fulfillment of these commandments constitutes our integrity, our happiness, that which is the greatest good for us whether or not we know or admit to it at any particular point in time. God wants us holy-for our sake. Forgiveness only produces holiness to the extent that we also respond, that we allow ourselves to be changed by it and by it’s source, the God who is love, who wants to transform us into that very same image. God has a *plan *in all this IOW, a purpose.

 

[OneSheep]

Ok. But no approach can leave out man’s responsibility, our need to do our part. This is exactly what God covets in us:* our willingness*; our justice stems from Him-and yet it simultaneously stems from our willingness to embrace it. Justice has a definition, the most concise of which is summed up by the greatest commandments. This is not merely a demand; this is what makes us right, this constitutes whatever can be good and true about us. The fulfillment of these commandments constitutes our integrity, our happiness, that which is the greatest good for us whether or not we know or admit to it at any particular point in time. God wants us holy-for our sake. Forgiveness only produces holiness to the extent that we also respond, that we allow ourselves to be changed by it and by it’s source, the God who is love, who wants to transform us into that very same image. God has a *plan *in all this IOW, a purpose.

Yes, I agree. I might do one slight modification to my agreement, though, concerning this:

" this is what makes us right, this constitutes whatever can be good and true about us."

This is where the words of Jesus, “no one is good but God alone” make sense. Our worth, our value, is not based on our actions. Jesus embraces, and is in communion with, the sinner. To me, then, what constitutes what is “good” about us is the beauty we are as creatures made in His image. Our very being, including our nature, is a work that inspires wonder and awe.

I definitely agree that all righteousness comes from God.

thanks

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I agree. I might do one slight modification to my agreement, though, concerning this:

" this is what makes us right, this constitutes whatever can be good and true about us."

This is where the words of Jesus, “no one is good but God alone” make sense. Our worth, our value, is not based on our actions. Jesus embraces, and is in communion with, the sinner. To me, then, what constitutes what is “good” about us is the beauty we are as creatures made in His image. Our very being, including our nature, is a work that inspires wonder and awe.

I definitely agree that all righteousness comes from God.

thanks

Yes, the justice or righteousness that makes us right comes from God-and yet we can refuse/reject that justice. We’re created good and beautiful and true, but we can reject that beauty and truth of who we we, we can denigrate and corrupt it. So the church teaches that our perfection is connected to our choosing it, choosing God to put it another way. He created His universe “in statu viae”, in a “state of journeying” to perfection. And we achieve it, with the help of grace, thusly:

**I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.**

This is the “our part”. Even though grace is involved, we still receive merit, or reproach, based on our responses to grace. The Parable of the Talents describes this beautifully. God is all for us, but neither our perfection (justification) or our salvation is universal; we must do our part.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

Well, it can definitely occur such that a person who by nature does what he thinks is best also happens to be the moral best. Again, the Church has not explicitly stated that man does not have a greater inclination to do what he thinks is good.

Are you saying that a Catholic is required to believe that people are more inclined to sin than they are inclined to do good?

I have already addressed this in post 329:

You wrote: “Well, it can definitely occur such that a person who by nature does what he thinks is best also happens to be the moral best.”

I agree.

Q. Are you saying that a Catholic is required to believe that people are more inclined to sin than they are inclined to do good?

Yes, in the natural state at birth. The dogmas involved counter the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism.

Yes I know you already addressed it, with “what he thinks is best”. The phrase you use includes no distinction of rational and sensual so does not address good and sinful: the Church has explicitly stated that due to original sin, man has a greater inclination to do what is sinful, it is called concupiscence, which is that what is thought to be best is not best.

 

[PRmerger]

Good Morning PR,

God’s views do not diverge from my personal views because my personal views are based on God’s views, as experienced from doctrine and relationship.

So, please, can we stop making this discussion about me and instead about the topic? My last post to you concerning this was no. 318. Do you want to continue, or has your enthusiasm for investigating the topic waned?

Thanks!

Dearest One Sheep: this is not a discussion about you, but rather the Bigger Picture of:



as it applies to the Catholic dogma of Original Sin.

If your understanding of human nature and the Fall diverges from what the CC teaches, then you must re-conform your views to Christ’s.

And by “you” here I mean a “generic you”, as in “ALL OF US”.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, in the natural state at birth. The dogmas involved counter the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism.

Those heresies had other more major issues involved. I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a modern, moderate theologian who says “The Catholic is required to believe that the inclination to sin is greater than the inclination to do good.” This would be an overstatement, IMO, and I am wondering, a little, under what authority a person might make such a statement.

Instead, the Church is much more capable if embracing a variety of views on the subject, Vico. If you have something modern that says differently, please let me know!

Of course, you have the right to your own opinion…

 

[Vico]

Those heresies had other more major issues involved. I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a modern, moderate theologian who says “The Catholic is required to believe that the inclination to sin is greater than the inclination to do good.” This would be an overstatement, IMO, and I am wondering, a little, under what authority a person might make such a statement.

Instead, the Church is much more capable if embracing a variety of views on the subject, Vico. If you have something modern that says differently, please let me know!

Of course, you have the right to your own opinion…

Since we know that integrity was really possessed by Adam, and that is was lost in the Fall, it is certain that we are inclined to sin, without the help of grace.

For what Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are. Fr. Hardon, S.J., explained:

Pelagianism. …
Its basic principle is the affirmation of the self-sufficiency of man’s free will. We can always will and do good, even when de facto we will and do otherwise, depending entirely on our own moral strength.

In the Pelagian scheme there is no room for original sin. What we now call preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and integrity were never really possessed by Adam. He left us only a bad example. The fact that we are prone to sin is not inherited from Adam and Eve, our first parents. We acquire it by our own misdeeds.

Baptism therefore can have no strict remissive function. A person can be saved without it. At most its purpose is to incorporate us into the Church, unite us with Christ, or make us members of a mysterious heavenly kingdom. It can never be understood as being absolutely necessary for salvation.

For the same reason, sanctifying grace is not the necessary basis of supernatural activity, but only a sort of remedy for actual sins or a spiritual adornment of Christians and a sign of their divine adoption. …

Semi-Pelagianism. “Half-Pelagianism” or Semi-Pelagianism was historically linked to its predecessor. In this theory grace is admittedly necessary, but not ordinarily for the first steps towards the Christian life, and also not for final perseverance in the grace of God.

therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_009.htm

Catechism

406 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. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

 

[OneSheep]

Since we know that integrity was really possessed by Adam, and that is was lost in the Fall, it is certain that we are inclined to sin, without the help of grace.

For what Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are. Fr. Hardon, S.J., explained:

Pelagianism. …
Its basic principle is the affirmation of the self-sufficiency of man’s free will. We can always will and do good, even when de facto we will and do otherwise, depending entirely on our own moral strength.

In the Pelagian scheme there is no room for original sin. What we now call preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and integrity were never really possessed by Adam. He left us only a bad example. The fact that we are prone to sin is not inherited from Adam and Eve, our first parents. We acquire it by our own misdeeds.

Baptism therefore can have no strict remissive function. A person can be saved without it. At most its purpose is to incorporate us into the Church, unite us with Christ, or make us members of a mysterious heavenly kingdom. It can never be understood as being absolutely necessary for salvation.

For the same reason, sanctifying grace is not the necessary basis of supernatural activity, but only a sort of remedy for actual sins or a spiritual adornment of Christians and a sign of their divine adoption. …

Semi-Pelagianism. “Half-Pelagianism” or Semi-Pelagianism was historically linked to its predecessor. In this theory grace is admittedly necessary, but not ordinarily for the first steps towards the Christian life, and also not for final perseverance in the grace of God.

therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_009.htm

Catechism

406 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. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

Hi Vico,

I must make a correction on my last post, I am still observing that people are more inclined to do what they think is best than they are inclined to sin.

Based on Fr. Hardon’s description of Pelagianism, Pelagius did not make the same observation of human nature as I am stating above.

Think about it, Vico, if people were more inclined to sin than do what we think is good, how on Earth would people actually survive? For the greatest of sins is to end the life of others or self, yet we survive and thrive, and wish to continue doing so. Now you may say, “That is because of God’s grace”. Well, that could be, but then it would be very hard to find a person not graced in such a way, right?

Would one have such a negative view of humanity as to think that people have less desire for the good than a lowly mouse? an ant? IMO, the will to survive and thrive is good and it is our strongest desire, and we share this nature with all of God’s beautiful creatures. Now, when you are talking about morality, we are on a different topic! There you have a strong footing, and we would find much agreement.

On the other hand, a more pessimistic view is understandable, and has plenty of support…

God Bless you, and have a restful remainder of your evening.

 

[OneSheep]

Dearest One Sheep: this is not a discussion about you

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

I must make a correction on my last post, I am still observing that people are more inclined to do what they think is best than they are inclined to sin.

Based on Fr. Hardon’s description of Pelagianism, Pelagius did not make the same observation of human nature as I am stating above.

Think about it, Vico, if people were more inclined to sin than do what we think is good, how on Earth would people actually survive? For the greatest of sins is to end the life of others or self, yet we survive and thrive, and wish to continue doing so. Now you may say, “That is because of God’s grace”. Well, that could be, but then it would be very hard to find a person not graced in such a way, right?

Would one have such a negative view of humanity as to think that people have less desire for the good than a lowly mouse? an ant? IMO, the will to survive and thrive is good and it is our strongest desire, and we share this nature with all of God’s beautiful creatures. Now, when you are talking about morality, we are on a different topic! There you have a strong footing, and we would find much agreement.

On the other hand, a more pessimistic view is understandable, and has plenty of support…

God Bless you, and have a restful remainder of your evening.

I posted that “Since we know that integrity was really possessed by Adam, and that is was lost in the Fall, it is certain that we are inclined to sin, without the help of grace.” That is not the same as what you are saying because you do not quality it with grace or without. The inclination to sin is when without grace. This is an important teaching because we can neither save ourselves nor make the first move towards God, by our nature, per the dogmas of faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

I posted that “Since we know that integrity was really possessed by Adam, and that is was lost in the Fall, it is certain that we are inclined to sin, without the help of grace.” That is not the same as what you are saying because you do not quality it with grace or without. The inclination to sin is when without grace. This is an important teaching because we can neither save ourselves nor make the first move towards God, by our nature, per the dogmas of faith of the Catholic Church.

Good morning!

Well, an unbaptized child is still inclined to eat, call for help, and excrete waste. If these were actions actually considered, or even if they are not, the child is either doing what it thinks is good or at least behaving in a way that is good for his/her temple.

So you see, Vico, I think we can get really stuck on the “moral good” (not that it isn’t a worthy topic). With God’s help we develop a conscience (although the conscience is within us, it is with God’s help it develops). With such help, which we could very well call grace, we develop a moral conscience.

Without the grace to develop such a moral compass, yes, we are capable of sin, which could definitely be described as an “inclination” even though it is the appetite that inclines, not the desire to sin for the sake of sin itself.

And please, when you come up with something from a valid authority that says a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good, let me know.

Thank you, Vico, you are a stalwart for the Baltimore Catechism and it is great to have people who stand up for the view of Catholicism that is more traditional. Change is never easy, and the more traditional approach gives comfort to those of us who find change frightening or unholy.

Or, would you rather select out Catholics who disagree with some interpretations?

God Bless.

 

[Vico]

Good morning!

Well, an unbaptized child is still inclined to eat, call for help, and excrete waste. If these were actions actually considered, or even if they are not, the child is either doing what it thinks is good or at least behaving in a way that is good for his/her temple.

So you see, Vico, I think we can get really stuck on the “moral good” (not that it isn’t a worthy topic). With God’s help we develop a conscience (although the conscience is within us, it is with God’s help it develops). With such help, which we could very well call grace, we develop a moral conscience.

Without the grace to develop such a moral compass, yes, we are capable of sin, which could definitely be described as an “inclination” even though it is the appetite that inclines, not the desire to sin for the sake of sin itself.

And please, when you come up with something from a valid authority that says a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good, let me know.

Thank you, Vico, you are a stalwart for the Baltimore Catechism and it is great to have people who stand up for the view of Catholicism that is more traditional. Change is never easy, and the more traditional approach gives comfort to those of us who find change frightening or unholy.

Or, would you rather select out Catholics who disagree with some interpretations?

God Bless.

I don’t select anyone.

I never posted that “a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good”. First of all see would not be the correct word, but with dogma, it would be accept. Secondly the dogma is not about “think is good” but about concupiscence which is a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. So the inclination, at birth and without grace, is to satisfy the lower appetite contrary to reason. Coming back continually with that same phrase even though I have explained the difference a few times, is ignoring the point.

 

[guanophore]

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.

That is precisely my point. God has created us such that we are able to do good works through his grace. We can do morally good actions because of the basic moral goodness in which we are created. God saw what He had made, and it was good.

That seems contrary to reality, doesn’t it?

God simply could not have created a world in which every view I have is the same as what has been decreed by God.

“I think that as long as you love someone, sex with that person is fine!”
And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!)

“I think that it’s too legalistic to demand that folks go to Mass every Sunday!”
*And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!) *

“I think that as long as you’re a good person, what religion you follow doesn’t matter!”
*And guess what…God said this, too (not sure where, but that’s what I believe!) *

Sure…AFTER one has disciplined himself to change his views towards God.

You are just speaking about relativism, which I am not advocating. God created Adam and Eve with consciences, and proclaimed His creation “good”. The human desire to do that which we think is good shows that we have an innate desire to do good.

God’s views do not diverge from my personal views because my personal views are based on God’s views, as experienced from doctrine and relationship.

So, please, can we stop making this discussion about me and instead about the topic? My last post to you concerning this was no. 318. Do you want to continue, or has your enthusiasm for investigating the topic waned?

Thanks!

Human beings interpret whatever we hear and read. When we hear the Scriptures, or read about doctrine, we understand these things through our own personal lived experiences. The Church says that we do not have to take the Genesis account literally, so if we use a figurative approach, we can see other ways of understanding the nature of original sin. God created mankind the way He wanted him to be, and a loving God would never punish his Creation for exercising a gift that was given (to choose).

Good Morning, Vico

Well, it can definitely occur such that a person who by nature does what he thinks is best also happens to be the moral best. Again, the Church has not explicitly stated that man does not have a greater inclination to do what he thinks is good.

Are you saying that a Catholic is required to believe that people are more inclined to sin than they are inclined to do good?

I have already addressed this in post 329:

Vico has represented concupiscence as “dogma” - something that is required to be believed as a Catholic. But even the notion of “dogma” is something man made, and open to interpretation.

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.

Certainly we can modify the definition of grace. We need to understand these concepts in terms of our lived experience.

As far as an example of a person who has not been given grace so they, by nature, have a greater inclination to do good, this is not likely to happen. Since no human being ever knowingly and willingly rejects God, in each and every case we could examine, it will be clear that the person thought he was doing good, even if he was blind and ignorant (missed the mark).

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.

For the most part, what we observe in ourselves and the world around us should have more value and importance than “dogma”. And the inclination to do what one thinks is good is the same as being able to do good, is it not?

      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?

The story of humankind being expelled from the Garden of Eden does not mean that God evicted us as a just punishment for sin. Instead, it is a human story that explains how we feel separated from God, when we fall short. We blame ourselves that we have not reached our own ideals, and then project the anger we have toward ourselves onto our concept of God. This is what the story in Genesis is trying to show.

 

[guanophore]

You wrote: “Well, it can definitely occur such that a person who by nature does what he thinks is best also happens to be the moral best.”

I agree.

Q. Are you saying that a Catholic is required to believe that people are more inclined to sin than they are inclined to do good?

Yes, in the natural state at birth. The dogmas involved counter the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism.

Yes I know you already addressed it, with “what he thinks is best”. The phrase you use includes no distinction of rational and sensual so does not address good and sinful: the Church has explicitly stated that due to original sin, man has a greater inclination to do what is sinful, it is called concupiscence, which is that what is thought to be best is not best.

Surely there are times when what we think is best corresponds to what is actually best?

Why would one need a distinction of rational and sensual?

Dearest One Sheep: this is not a discussion about you, but rather the Bigger Picture of:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/5a/45/025a4540a9b7c73fccf6e874713bc98e.jpg

as it applies to the Catholic dogma of Original Sin.

If your understanding of human nature and the Fall diverges from what the CC teaches, then you must re-conform your views to Christ’s.

And by “you” here I mean a “generic you”, as in “ALL OF US”.

There is plenty of room in the Church for diversity, divergence, and legitimate differences. We are not required to read Genesis literally. The interpretation that God created mankind and called him “good” certainly conforms to what the Church teaches.

Those heresies had other more major issues involved. I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a modern, moderate theologian who says “The Catholic is required to believe that the inclination to sin is greater than the inclination to do good.” This would be an overstatement, IMO, and I am wondering, a little, under what authority a person might make such a statement.

Instead, the Church is much more capable if embracing a variety of views on the subject, Vico. If you have something modern that says differently, please let me know!

Of course, you have the right to your own opinion…

The time has come to re-imagine and re-inerpret the “old” ways of understanding the Scriptures and the doctrines. One way to do this is to realize that many parts of Scripture are just representing a projection of the psychology of the writer into the material.

Hi Vico,

I must make a correction on my last post, I am still observing that people are more inclined to do what they think is best than they are inclined to sin.

Think about it, Vico, if people were more inclined to sin than do what we think is good, how on Earth would people actually survive? For the greatest of sins is to end the life of others or self, yet we survive and thrive, and wish to continue doing so. Now you may say, “That is because of God’s grace”. Well, that could be, but then it would be very hard to find a person not graced in such a way, right?

Inclined to sin means doing sin, and annhililating other human beings. Clearly, this has not happened, so it proves that we are more inclined to good than evil.

A person inclined to do what they think is good is opposite of being inclined toward evil.

Would one have such a negative view of humanity as to think that people have less desire for the good than a lowly mouse? an ant? IMO, the will to survive and thrive is good and it is our strongest desire, and we share this nature with all of God’s beautiful creatures. Now, when you are talking about morality, we are on a different topic! There you have a strong footing, and we would find much agreement.

Survival is a drive placed into us by our Creator, and is evidence that the human person, just like all the creatures of nature, are all inclined toward the good.

 On the other hand, a more pessimistic view is understandable, and has plenty of support...:)

Holding to a view of humankind as inclined toward evil is a disrespect for the good created by God. It holds the human person in low esteem, and can contribute to negativity.

 

[Vico]

Surely there are times when what we think is best corresponds to what is actually best?

Why would one need a distinction of rational and sensual?,.

Because concupiscence is a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

That is precisely my point. God has created us such that we are able to do good works through his grace. We can do morally good actions because of the basic moral goodness in which we are created. God saw what He had made, and it was good…

The preternatural gift of integrity (freedom from concupiscence) was lost for mankind through the original sin.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t select anyone.

I’m sorry, Vico, to imply that you would. I meant “that the Church would select”. It was an improper communication on my part.

I never posted that “a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good”. First of all see would not be the correct word, but with dogma, it would be accept. Secondly the dogma is not about “think is good” but about concupiscence which is a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. So the inclination, at birth and without grace, is to satisfy the lower appetite contrary to reason. Coming back continually with that same phrase even though I have explained the difference a few times, is ignoring the point.

Right, so do you then agree that the Catholic can certainly see that our inclination to do what we think is good can be simultaneously observed while believing we are inclined to sin and believing that concupiscence is a desire of the lower appetite?

I am not getting the part about satisfaction of the “lower appetite” being contrary to reason. Are eating and crying for help part of the “lower appetite” demonstrated by the newborn unbaptized child? The child desires food and comfort, the child desires rest. Acts in concert with such desires are not contrary to reason. So you see, the vast majority of what the child does, growing into adulthood, is inclined to do what he thinks is good, and objectively speaking is good. Of course, there are instances where strong desire (concupiscence) does some serious alterations to our minds, and we may end up doing things that are totally irrational, acts contrary to God’s law.

Moral development remains a different issue.

The point I am making, Vico, is that there is plenty of room for the Catholic to observe and believe things that do not conflict with the Catechism, and the observation that people are inclined to do what they think is good is one of these.

Original sin remains an explanation for why people are all born capable of sin. The concept precedes the science of genetics, but is definitely accurate in the observation that we are not “empty slates” when we are born. We are all quite capable of sin, or “inclined”. By the grace of God, the baptized (either formally or by desire) are given the ability to counteract such capacity (though its application is voluntary).

Fair enough?