Original Sin

[Brav3N3wWorld]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

 

[davidv]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

Your first problem isn’t a problem. Scientists have not proven the a single first pair of humans did not occur. Theirs position is based on speculation and questionable assumptions that drive the computer models they use in a vain attempt to predict the past.

 

[greylorn]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

You have an even greater problem with the original sin issue than any of those mentioned.

God supposedly creates each individual soul from scratch. It is the soul which comes with original sin. Why would God imprint a brand new soul with a sin in which it could not have had a part, because the new soul did not exist back when the sin was committed?

And by way of addressing your perfectly valid and logical issues, note that they all go away if one assumes (as I’ve proposed elsewhere) that God did not create the soul.

 

[davidv]

You have an even greater problem with the original sin issue than any of those mentioned.

God supposedly creates each individual soul from scratch. It is the soul which comes with original sin. Why would God imprint a brand new soul with a sin in which it could not have had a part, because the new soul did not exist back when the sin was committed?

And by way of addressing your perfectly valid and logical issues, note that they all go away if one assumes (as I’ve proposed elsewhere) that God did not create the soul.

What if God doesn’t imprint the soul with original sin?

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

Your first problem isn’t a problem. Scientists have not proven the a single first pair of humans did not occur. Theirs position is based on speculation and questionable assumptions that drive the computer models they use in a vain attempt to predict the past.

Maybe you take issue with the word “proven,” but the current scientific consensus is that there needed to be multiple first humans to make the species viable. I believe 30-50 humans is the current prediction. Since this is the consensus, I think the burden of proof rests on those who think otherwise. Is there any scientific data that actually points towards the possibility of a single male and female progenitor? Please show me sources in scientific journals, if you know of any.

Besides, this one is really the least concern of my original sin questions. I’m more comfortable believing in a mythological Adam and Eve and a view of original sin as a tendency towards immorality, than I am view of original sin that necessarily makes God the complicit in evil.

 

[Ontheway]

My contribution will be a bit simplistic, but it seems to me that our soul is the relfection of God’s nature. As such, it is not “imprinted” with original sin. That comes later, as we become part of the world and have the option of rejecting, challenging, or attempting to surpass the creator, ie, exercising our free will.

Original sin, therefore, is “of this world”, if you will. As Adam and Eve were seduced by the serpent, we fall victim to the same temptation. The idea of original sin needs to be viewed not on a case-by-case basis, but as part of our human condition,inherited from A&E.

Their original sin imprints us with that very human trait. In a way, we are burdened with their guilt which is our, human guilt. We spend the rest of our life attempting to reconcile ourselves with God, to become "saints’.

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

You have an even greater problem with the original sin issue than any of those mentioned.

God supposedly creates each individual soul from scratch. It is the soul which comes with original sin. Why would God imprint a brand new soul with a sin in which it could not have had a part, because the new soul did not exist back when the sin was committed?

And by way of addressing your perfectly valid and logical issues, note that they all go away if one assumes (as I’ve proposed elsewhere) that God did not create the soul.

You raise an interesting point about the soul. Right now I think of human procreation and reproduction as a process in which God plays a primary cause, having created the means through which creation of new souls take place–reproduction. But humans are the secondary agents of this.

This would be a more hands-off approach in soul creation, because a person’s soul would be created through the means of reproduction. It would necessarily be a product of genetics, just like original sin would have to be product of genetics.

As embodied creatures, I can’t imagine the soul not being directly linked to our bodies, cells, and matter, specifically brain matter.

In this view God and humans would be responsible for soul creation, in the same way both God and humans responsible for original sin. Why should God get all the credit for soul creation, while humans only get credit for spreading original sin? It seems that God would have to be the primary cause of both, while humans are the secondary cause of both. All this to say, I think my questions on original sin are necessarily linked to issues of the soul.

 

[fhansen]

Hello all,
I haven’t posted on the forums for a while because I’ve been going through a period of intense doubt. I converted to Catholicism from Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism in 2007, but now I’m having a hard time with basic Christian beliefs. Protestantism is no longer a real option for me because if I’m going to be a Christian, I’m going to believe in historical Christianity, going back to Jesus and the apostles, but I don’t know if I can remain Catholic in light of my current difficulties, particularly issues surrounding the Doctrine of Original Sin.

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

I know this is a lot for one post, and I don’t expect one person to address all these points, but even addressing a few of them would be helpful.

Thanks!

Therer was no literal fruit invoivled. The fruit that God created was simply the* necessity of created man to love and obey His creator (to obey His creator out of* love) in order to have full integrity and life, and life worth living. Eating of the fruit consisted in no more than disobeying God, man not yet having learned to love Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, man not yet having learned the “value of God” so to speak.

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

My contribution will be a bit simplistic, but it seems to me that our soul is the relfection of God’s nature. As such, it is not “imprinted” with original sin. That comes later, as we become part of the world and have the option of rejecting, challenging, or attempting to surpass the creator, ie, exercising our free will.

Original sin, therefore, is “of this world”, if you will. As Adam and Eve were seduced by the serpent, we fall victim to the same temptation. The idea of original sin needs to be viewed not on a case-by-case basis, but as part of our human condition,inherited from A&E.

Their original sin imprints us with that very human trait. In a way, we are burdened with their guilt which is our, human guilt. We spend the rest of our life attempting to reconcile ourselves with God, to become "saints’.

But the Catholic faith doesn’t say that original sin is falling victim to the same temptation. It is something very real and inherited.

The catechism makes a distinction between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is inherited through Adam’s fall and must be washed away when we are baptized. This is why it is so important to have your children baptized ASAP. Maybe here is a good place to post a link to the catechism on the Fall and Original Sin.

I think what you are describing is actual sins, which are the sins we actually commit, either venial or mortal; either sins of commission or sins of omission. I have no problems with the teaching on actual sin. Actual sin makes sense. I should be guilty for misdeeds I actually commit. It’s original sin that is more tricky.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The STAIN of original sin is what is inherited; the Catechism’s wording on this point is very specific.

I HIGHLY encourage you to read these two articles by Doctor Feser. One article alone is pretty short but both together are maybe medium length (15-20 minutes? If you read fast ten). Don’t worry, Dr. Feser is a terrific writer and the articles are very easy to digest and extraordinarily helpful:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Believe me when I say they’re well worth your time

EDIT: If you’re pressed on time, article 2 is especially helpful-but I recommend both.

 

[greylorn]

What if God doesn’t imprint the soul with original sin?

Then, where does original sin come from?

Please don’t insult anyone’s limited intelligence by proposing that original sin is encoded in DNA and transmitted from there to the “soul.”

 

[greylorn]

My contribution will be a bit simplistic, but it seems to me that our soul is the relfection of God’s nature. As such, it is not “imprinted” with original sin. That comes later, as we become part of the world and have the option of rejecting, challenging, or attempting to surpass the creator, ie, exercising our free will.

Original sin, therefore, is “of this world”, if you will. As Adam and Eve were seduced by the serpent, we fall victim to the same temptation. The idea of original sin needs to be viewed not on a case-by-case basis, but as part of our human condition,inherited from A&E.

Their original sin imprints us with that very human trait. In a way, we are burdened with their guilt which is our, human guilt. We spend the rest of our life attempting to reconcile ourselves with God, to become "saints’.

Has the Church revised its Catechism to accommodate your personal world view? I’ll bet otherwise.

 

[greylorn]

You raise an interesting point about the soul. Right now I think of human procreation and reproduction as a process in which God plays a primary cause, having created the means through which creation of new souls take place–reproduction. But humans are the secondary agents of this.

This would be a more hands-off approach in soul creation, because a person’s soul would be created through the means of reproduction. It would necessarily be a product of genetics, just like original sin would have to be product of genetics.

As embodied creatures, I can’t imagine the soul not being directly linked to our bodies, cells, and matter, specifically brain matter.

In this view God and humans would be responsible for soul creation, in the same way both God and humans responsible for original sin. Why should God get all the credit for soul creation, while humans only get credit for spreading original sin? It seems that God would have to be the primary cause of both, while humans are the secondary cause of both. All this to say, I think my questions on original sin are necessarily linked to issues of the soul.

Your notions of soul seem to be entirely your own. Unless Catholic dogma has undergone a recent, unannounced shift, the “soul” is created by God and inserted into the fetus at the moment of fertilization.

This is the basis for the Church’s stance against abortion at any time.

Do you have any idea what the “soul” actually is? Do you have a definition of it, or are you just kicking around a vaguely understood and incompetently defined term that seems to have some place in your belief system, if only as a meaningless word?

 

[greylorn]

The STAIN of original sin is what is inherited; the Catechism’s wording on this point is very specific.

Help us get this straight. Contrary to what I was taught in Catechism class in the fifties, we do not actually inherit Original Sin. Instead we get something that you call “the stain” of Original Sin.

Is this from the new Catechism?

This bizarre notion seems analogous to that of, let’s say, a situation wherein my neighbor’s pet goat wanders into my home and has diarrhea on my new carpet. (I left the door open when I ran out to shoo her dogs away.) So I don’t get to own the goat, but I’m stuck forever with the stink of its poo?

I think that you are inventing dogma to suit your opinions, but perhaps the new Catechism has been Bowdlerized more profoundly than I realized, making this my mistake.

Whatever, I’m going to have the carpet cleaned and send my neighbor the bill, If she refuses to pay it, her marinated goat will be on my dinner table. I’m in favor of personal responsibility.

 

[fhansen]

Help us get this straight. Contrary to what I was taught in Catechism class in the fifties, we do not actually inherit Original Sin. Instead we get something that you call “the stain” of Original Sin.

Is this from the new Catechism?

This bizarre notion seems analogous to that of, let’s say, a situation wherein my neighbor’s pet goat wanders into my home and has diarrhea on my new carpet. (I left the door open when I ran out to shoo her dogs away.) So I don’t get to own the goat, but I’m stuck forever with the stink of its poo?

I think that you are inventing dogma to suit your opinions, but perhaps the new Catechism has been Bowdlerized more profoundly than I realized, making this my mistake.

Whatever, I’m going to have the carpet cleaned and send my neighbor the bill, If she refuses to pay it, her marinated goat will be on my dinner table. I’m in favor of personal responsibility.

The doctrine of OS is meant to explain the existence of sin, moral evil, in our world.This is part of the Church’s teaching on it:

**404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

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.**

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Help us get this straight. Contrary to what I was taught in Catechism class in the fifties, we do not actually inherit Original Sin. Instead we get something that you call “the stain” of Original Sin.

Is this from the new Catechism?

This bizarre notion seems analogous to that of, let’s say, a situation wherein my neighbor’s pet goat wanders into my home and has diarrhea on my new carpet. (I left the door open when I ran out to shoo her dogs away.) So I don’t get to own the goat, but I’m stuck forever with the stink of its poo?

I think that you are inventing dogma to suit your opinions, but perhaps the new Catechism has been Bowdlerized more profoundly than I realized, making this my mistake.

Whatever, I’m going to have the carpet cleaned and send my neighbor the bill, If she refuses to pay it, her marinated goat will be on my dinner table. I’m in favor of personal responsibility.

No, I’m almost 100% sure this is from the new Catechism. It’s a more Eastern understanding of Original Sin than previously taught to Latins. I’ll check:

Checking, checking

Ah, here’s an official confirmation.

Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

T*he most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all **stain of original sin**.

This is from 1854. This is referring, of course, specifically to Mary, but Original Sin is Original Sin.

The Catechism, admittedly, refers to “inheriting Original Sin”, but the dogma is more official, since the Catechism is only a summary of teachings, and more precise. (I will, however, admit up front that I was wrong about what the CATECHISM said and was probably thinking of the wording of the dogma). I think it’s simply a subtle distinction. The Church’s explanation on Original Sin matches up pretty nicely with what my theology teacher explained about the specifics of STAIN of Original Sin.

The difference in wording just makes it more precise. That’s natural for a declared dogma, which has to be extremely precise with every word since it’s theoretically infallible.

Just check out the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church, it’s all online. Google “Catechism Second Edition Original Sin”.

I’d talk more about the poo argument, but 1) “Stain” is just a more precise way of wording the official Catechism’s teaching 2) Everything useful is in the articles I linked and 3) I’m tired.

[Yes, bringing up what I learned in theology is technically an argument from authority. I myself have tremendous respect for this particular teacher, who taught me more about
Catholicism in two years of High School than everything I’d learned in the rest of my Catholic education (CCD and two years of High School) combined. So you can take my word that this teacher is an expert or not. If not, that’s your prerogative. Just know that I consider this source very trustworthy. ]

 

[ricmat]

My first problem is scientific. Humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals. Evolutionarily speaking, two humans would not provide enough genetic diversity to allow the human species to continue to grow. All the scientific evidence points against a literal Adam and a literal Eve; yet theologically, Protestants and Catholics both view original sin as something inherited–like our eye color, it’s in our DNA, our genes. Cardinal George Pell recently said that Catholics can believe in evolution and without a literal Adam and Eve, but if there was no original Adam and Eve, there could be no original consumption of forbidden fruit. Therefore, how could we actually inherit original sin?

Science has not proved anything with regard to our first parents. Just look at scientific literature on almost any subject. Is coffee good for you or bad for you? How about dark chocolate? Depending on the day of the week, the answers change 180 degrees.

You are right however, that we must believe in a literal Adam and Eve per Catholic teaching.

Because Catholics believe original sin is inherited, God, in His grace, gave Mary extra special graces to preserve her from inheriting original sin. This is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This does fit in nicely with the sin-as-inherited view of Christianity because it explains how Jesus could be born without sin. But at the same time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception suffers from a problem of infinite regression. Why is this applied to Mary, but not Saint Anne, Mary’s mother? For that matter, why didn’t God preserve anybody else from original sin?

Who says that there needs to be infinite regression? God created everything from scratch. Certainly he could arrange things as he wished, for any reason he wished. Adam & Eve’s sin had consequences (that we inherit concupiscence). But God made an exception in the case of Mary only, because she was the new Ark of the Covenant. Jesus/God could not physically reside in Mary’s womb if Mary were not totally pure.

On a related note, the whole Garden of Eden scenario sounds like a cruel game. God created the forbidden fruit, knowing full well that it would cause multiple problems to Adam and Eve if they ate from it. Why create a forbidden fruit at all?

Love must be a choice. Without an option for “not love”, the word love has no meaning.

Adam and Eve chose not to trust in God, and to be like God without God’s help. During the temptation, Adam could have called on God for help…but he did not. They thought they didn’t need God.

The typical response to this is usually something like, “God created the forbidden fruit to give Adam and Eve free will.” But this simply doesn’t make sense in light of Augustinian theology, which maintains that free will is nothing more than the ability to make the RIGHT choice, not the ability to make the wrong choice. Indeed, Augustine maintains that the will is most free when choosing what is right. If there were no forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would still have been able to make the right choice.

If there were no forbidden fruit, there would actually be no such thing as a choice. Free will gives us the capability to NOT love God. Properly exercised, we use it to love God.

The question of the forbidden fruit also brings up the question of theodicy. Adam and Eve, both chose to eat the forbidden fruit, but God still created it. Although the act of eating the forbidden fruit was sinful, God was still the primary cause of this sin because He created the fruit.

This episode is more a test of God’s authority. God didn’t cause the sin. He gave Adam and Eve free will with the ability to choose to sin or not. Just like Adam blames God (It’s your fault God!) for giving him the woman that handed him the fruit, we all tend to blame God when we choose unwisely.

And this is where most of my questions return. How is God not responsible for evil, either in His direct actions, as the case with the forbidden fruit, or in His inaction?

Or, in Catholic theological terms, how is God not sinful in matters of commission (direct acts of evil) and omission (failing to do good, when good can be done)?

Evil is the absence of God and God’s will. He does not create it. We create it by separating our will from God’s will. When we choose “not God”, it is not God’s fault.

God’s active will does not cause evil, although his permissive will allows it to occur. To prevent it from happening would pretty much negate the whole idea of choosing love rather than sin. In order to choose love, the choices cannot be 1. Love, and 2. Love. It is choosing love in the presence of sinful temptations that gives meaning to the word.

Hope this helps. I’m up about 3 hours early this morning, and my brain isn’t working well yet - but even when it is at full speed, that isn’t very fast

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

Your notions of soul seem to be entirely your own. Unless Catholic dogma has undergone a recent, unannounced shift, the “soul” is created by God and inserted into the fetus at the moment of fertilization.

This is the basis for the Church’s stance against abortion at any time.

They’re not entirely, my own, as all the NFP literature and stuff I’ve read about the soul, specifically says that humans are co-creators with God in the reproductive process. This is the basis for the Church’s stance against artificial birth control.

You seem to be knowledgeable of the Catechism, even if you don’t believe it, can you point me to what the Church teaches on the soul.

Do you have any idea what the “soul” actually is? Do you have a definition of it, or are you just kicking around a vaguely understood and incompetently defined term that seems to have some place in your belief system, if only as a meaningless word?

No, I don’t. I admit I’m throwing out guesses.

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

The STAIN of original sin is what is inherited; the Catechism’s wording on this point is very specific.

I HIGHLY encourage you to read these two articles by Doctor Feser. One article alone is pretty short but both together are maybe medium length (15-20 minutes? If you read fast ten). Don’t worry, Dr. Feser is a terrific writer and the articles are very easy to digest and extraordinarily helpful:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Believe me when I say they’re well worth your time

EDIT: If you’re pressed on time, article 2 is especially helpful-but I recommend both.

Thanks for the links. I won’t be able to get to them until later. I have a big day today–taking the kids to the water park and a picnic. I’ll respond after I look at them.

 

[davidv]

Then, where does original sin come from?

From human failure.

Please don’t insult anyone’s limited intelligence by proposing that original sin is encoded in DNA and transmitted from there to the “soul.”