Original Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peccavi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peccavi

Guest
In the Catholic Encyclopedia St. Thomas Aquinas defines original sin as part of the moral unity of mankind…
“An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” (De Malo, iv, 1).
However, we are taught that original sin is NOT a part of the human condition. That Christ could be without sin (ie Original Sin) and still share in our humanity. This seperation of original sin from our humanity does not make theological sense. If a child is born into this world with the capacity to do good or to do evil (original sin) - to accept or reject God in their lives - then capacity to sin IS at birth part of our humanity. Not to include that capacity makes us less than human. If Jesus shares in our humanity and our temptations - as he clearly did - then being without the sin of Adam makes his conquest of sin and death less rather than more remarkable. If, on the other hand, Christ was FULLY human, then his victory for each of us, is all the greater for having shared in our weaknesses and 'the dark temptations that the flesh is heir to. ’
I cannot visualise a truly human Jesus unless he shares fully in the collective humanity of mankind. A Christ born without sin must stand outside the human collective and as such be not one with us. That is unacceptable Gnosticism !
 
Have you got a link to where you got that quote from at New Advent friend?
 
Useful, thanks.

Great question, BTW!

OK how’s this for an answer. Our Lady was also born without sin - that’s the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. As we know, Mary was totally human, with human father and mother, therefore truly ‘one of us’.

Adam and Eve were sinless too, and they were tempted. Problem was they chose to embrace temptation. Temptation is by its nature subtle - evil can present itself as moral good. For instance, contraception is presented as morally good as ‘protection’ against HIV, teenage pregnancy etc.

The temptations of Jesus were not evil - he was tempted to stave his hunger and to bring about the success of his mission ie leading all men to belief in God. If he did not know the alternative scenario of passion and death (and, by the way, he would have known the Messianic psalm, the ‘Suffering Servant’ etc …) there would have been no real temptation to bring about a jollier conclusion to his mission.

I’m sure Mary must have been tempted too. What about at the crucifixion, and when Jesus lay dead in the tomb? It was only because she was sinless that she could withstand all that trauma without going mad with sorrow!

It was only because Jesus is sinless that he could undergo all that suffering and experience abandonment in his human senses, but remain true to himself (humanly speaking). Jesus, the Son of God, came to ‘fix the fault’ that spoils all human beings as a result of Adam’s choice. Through baptism we become new creation. However, we are still open to temptation, and, unhappily, because of that underlying fault, are still weak in that respect. If two bits of metal have come apart, even if they’re welded back together, there will still be a weakness in that part?

Try looking at ‘Redemptor Hominis’ and check out what Most says here catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=215&ChapNum=11
 
Me again 👋

I’ve been thinking about this and reading a bit more and I think I have some more ideas that may help. They come from soteriological reflections which form the essential underpinning for any Christology. Only if the Son of God assumed our fallen nature could he heal it and save it. Thus the Son of God did not quarantine himself from our sinful and suffering plight, but instead immersed himself within it.

In recent times a number of theologians (for example Edward Irving (Church of Scotland 1792-1834), Karl Barth (Lutheran 1886-1968), Hans Urs von Balthasar (Catholic 1905-1988) and also the contemporary theologian Thomas Weinandy OFM have taken the same line as you do here to some extent.

This emphasises the Medieval notion espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm and, interestingly- Aquinas—that in the Incarnation the Son of God did not assume some generic humanity, but our own sinful humanity. The Word became flesh (sarx) (John 1:14), and thus shared in all of our human weakness. The Father sent ‘His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Romans 8:3), and even ‘made him to be sin who knew no sin’ (1 Cor. 5:21). While he never sinned personally (see Hebrews 4:25, 1 Peter 2:22, John 8:46, 1 John 3:5), and while he did not have an inner propensity to sin, yet his humanity was of the race of fallen Adam. Being of Adam’s fallen race, Tertullian aptly stated that he bore ‘the birthmark of sin’ (On the flesh of Christ, 16, 25), and thus, by necessity, he experienced the effects of having assumed such a humanity. Like all human beings living within the fallen human condition, the Son of God, as man, truly experienced hunger and thirst, sickness and sorrow, temptation and harassment by Satan; being hated and despised, he experienced fear and loneliness; on the cross he even underwent death and separation from God.
 
Thank you
I have studied Karl Barth’s work. What he has to say impressed me. I have also read Aquinas and have an affinity with medieval catholicism ( oddly often more tollerant and inclusive than today’s version).
Many of the present dogmatic statements of our Church appear around the 1860s 1870s when the Vatican’s temporal power was being swept away by the usurge of Italian nationalism. I ponder how much the modern Church is a product of Papal feelings of vulnerability ?? Cardinal Newman warned about ultramontane dogmatics. If I look back with unashamed fondness to the less rigid Catholicism of the medieval universities it is because I am tired of priests and laymen trotting out well-worn trite answers to deep questions of faith. As Bonhoeffer said - there is no such thing as cheap grace. I am pleased to meet a fellow searcher after critical truths.
PS. Have you read Tillich ? Astonishing insights into the nature of Being and Christ as the ground of our Being.*
Attendite a falsis prophetis, qui veniunt ad vos vestimentis ovium, intrinsecus autem sunt lupi rapaces:*
 
Peccavi said:
In the Catholic Encyclopedia St. Thomas Aquinas defines original sin as part of the moral unity of mankind…
“An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” (De Malo, iv, 1).
However, we are taught that original sin is NOT a part of the human condition. That Christ could be without sin (ie Original Sin) and still share in our humanity. This seperation of original sin from our humanity does not make theological sense. If a child is born into this world with the capacity to do good or to do evil (original sin) - to accept or reject God in their lives - then capacity to sin IS at birth part of our humanity. Not to include that capacity makes us less than human. If Jesus shares in our humanity and our temptations - as he clearly did - then being without the sin of Adam makes his conquest of sin and death less rather than more remarkable. If, on the other hand, Christ was FULLY human, then his victory for each of us, is all the greater for having shared in our weaknesses and 'the dark temptations that the flesh is heir to. ’
I cannot visualise a truly human Jesus unless he shares fully in the collective humanity of mankind. A Christ born without sin must stand outside the human collective and as such be not one with us. That is unacceptable Gnosticism !
Click to expand...
Peccavi,

I find your post to be rather ambiguous. You stated, “However, we are taught that original sin is NOT a part of the human condition.” Who teaches this? Cite your source.

Next, you stated, 'If a child is born into this world with the capacity to do good or to do evil (original sin) - to accept or reject God in their lives - then capacity to sin IS at birth part of our humanity." You have equated here the capacity to good or evil with original sin. This is not correct. The capacity to do good or evil is merely the power of free will. It is not sin in itself, either original sin or personal sin.

Finally, you assert “A Christ born without sin must stand outside the human collective and as such be not one with us. That is unacceptable Gnosticism !” I must ask “What does Christ’s sinlessness have to do with gnosticism?” Explain what you mean. Thanks.
 
Howard Bloom wrote a book, The Lucifer Principle (1995) in which he describes the sociobiological reasons that people behave badly. For example, sociobiologically speaking, rape is a “good” behavior because rapists are more likely to pass on their genes than non-rapists. You can pretty much guess the rest of his argument.

It should come as no surprise, then (though it will, still, to some) that humans tend to be horrible creatures by nature.

What I wonder is this: how much of what Catholicism teaches as original sin can be accounted for by Bloom’s Lucifer Principle. Are they the same, merely similar, or just occassionally coincidental?

It certainly helps to explain why sanctifying humanity is no modest task, why human institutions tend to slip back into darkness, and why Revelation was necessary.

Of course, such genetic tendencies toward evil are not washed away by Baptism.
 
If ALL humans are basically driven by the selfish gene what then ocassions acts of unselfish goodness. One example comes from the Great War of 1914-18 where a young army doctor CHOSE to stay on the front line with his men long after he could have been sent home covered in honours for his bravery. He chose to share in their suffering and eventually in their death. It was an act of unquestionable goodness NOT of self preservation, glory seeking or otherwise self agrandising. I suppose some clever psychologist will fix up some psychotic explanation, some will towards self destruction. But no. In this world human beings have choices for good or ill and we all choose differently. My daughter faced such a choice when as a very young woman she got herself into drugs and became pregnant. she chose to give up drugs and to give birth to my beautiful grand-daughter. Her friend chose to stay with the drugs and have an abortion. Same age, same family background, same Catholic School, same set of friends…different choices. No amount of psychological gobbledigook will convince me that utter evil is never compensated by acts of goodness, or that as human beings we are incapable of both/either. Everything that is human is fixed by original sin. We can all do good or evil.
 
Peccavi said:
If ALL humans are basically driven by the selfish gene what then ocassions acts of unselfish goodness. …No amount of psychological gobbledigook will convince me that utter evil is never compensated by acts of goodness, or that as human beings we are incapable of both/either. Everything that is human is fixed by original sin. We can all do good or evil.
Click to expand...
You seem to be assuming that the Lucifer Principle is an account of all human behavior. I don’t think that is the author’s claim and it’s certainly not mine. A couple countervailing works: The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley and Nonzero by Robert Wright which explore the advantages of cooperation.

The point, though, is that such tendencies are inherent to humanity, not mere abstract choices.

The question, though is what is the nature of original sin and how are we to deal with it. (And, for that matter, what is baptism.) Catholicism tends to take a legalistic view of original sin but perhaps a naturalistic approach might shed some light on the subject.
 
Let me think on what you’ve said…look at this Lucifer principle and get back to you when I’ve something to add or subtract.
A brief thought …isn’t original sin inherent not an abstraction and therefore equates to the same thesis ?
 
To Itinerant

a) Curiously enough my Source is from one of the priests on this website.
b) if evil is not sin nothing else is, therefore a capacity to choose between good and evil must a priori be an ability ‘not to sin’. The fact that we are sinners means we often make wrong choices.
c)the gnostic heresy sees Christ as not truly human, one of the missing human features being his lack of original sin.
 
Peccavi said:
A brief thought …isn’t original sin inherent not an abstraction and therefore equates to the same thesis ?
Click to expand...
Right, but the critical question (beyond whether original sin is real or a figment of Paul’s immagination, as some would assert) is what is the nature of original sin and what is required to overcome it?

Here is one problem with orthodox original sin theology: If baptism erases original sin then the best thing you can do for a baptised infant is to kill it. That infant goes straight to heaven.

What that suggests is that life is nothing more than one long exposure to Satan’s temptations. The best one can hope for is to avoid those temptations and achieve the same outcome that the baptised and murdered infant achieves.

I have a hard time believing that is how it works.

(Similarly, by some accounts, the worst thing you can do to a heathen is to educate them about Christianity. Before they are blissfully ignorant of right and wrong. After they are responsible for their choices.)

On the other hand, if original sin is intrinsic to human nature then life is a far more meaningful struggle not simply to avoid sin, and not simply to do right, but to learn what right is.

And that, in turn, gives more meaning to God’s revelation.

(Regarding the Christology question, by taking human form Jesus was take on the intrinsic human nature and thus the tendencies, and there are plenty of examples of his being very directly tempted, e.g. to save himself, but choosing not to do so. Jesus demonstrated, by example, that it is possible for humans, even in their fallen nature, to avoid temptation. Don’t ask me what this implies for Immaculate Conception, though.)
 
Peccavi said:
To Itinerant

a) Curiously enough my Source is from one of the priests on this website.
b) if evil is not sin nothing else is, therefore a capacity to choose between good and evil must a priori be an ability ‘not to sin’. The fact that we are sinners means we often make wrong choices.
c)the gnostic heresy sees Christ as not truly human, one of the missing human features being his lack of original sin.
Click to expand...
(My access to a computer will be sporadic this week, so I will not always be able to respond timely in this forum.)

(A) You said a priest is the source of some comments you posted. Can you obtain precise quotes from this priest so I can see exactly what it was that he said? I would like to see his words before I make further comment.

(B) You stated above “if evil is not sin nothing else is”. I disagree with your statement. You may want to consult St. Augustine’s discussions of the nature of evil. I believe the title of one of the relevant works is “On the Nature of the Good”. St. Thomas Aquinas also has a classical treatment on evil in his Summa Theologica.

The reason I disagree with your statement is because evil is not a thing in itself. It does not have a positive existence as does say a tree, or rock, or love. Evil is the absence of some good that a being should possess. Evil, then, is a privation of being. There are basically two types of evil: physical evil and moral evil. Only moral evil can be a sin. Regarding physical evil, a broken arm is a physical evil because the arm lacks the right structure and function. Evil is a privation in the proper structure of the arm. Othe examples of physical evil are abject poverty and disease. There is an absence of needs and the health of the body, respectively.

In regard to moral evil, we are concerned with the evil consequent to the kind of choice made by a person with free will. This kind of evil entails a lack of right order in the will. The choice is a disordered one. A disordered choice does not contribute to the true happiness of the person making the choice. The disordered choice is actually detrimental to genuine happiness. So, sin is a moral evil involving a disordered choice, one that breaks the divine or natural moral law.

In this regard, even pagans who do not know Christ can sin when they make choices that contravene the natural moral law, or as St. Paul calls it in his letter to the Romans “the law of God written on the heart of man”.

(C) The gnostic heresy (actually there are various gnostic heresies, not just one) rejects what the Church and the Bible actually teach about the nature of Jesus Christ. The Church and the Bible teach that Jesus was like us in all things except sin. Being human is in no way defined by sin since sin is not a part of our essential nature. Moral evil is a privation and therefore cannot be an essential constituent of any rational being. Christ was without the guilt of Original Sin (which involves the loss of Original Justice), and He was without personal sin, and these facts do not make him not human. It means, rather, that he is fully human without the wounds to the human soul caused by Original Sin.

The Gnostics are not even in the same ball park on this one. However, if you would like to cite a particular gnostic text for discussion, I would be game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top