Original Sin

[grannymh]

Angry feeling of sadness? When I get angry at someone, I do not see the person’s value at the moment. When I feel resentment, a person’s value to me is perceived to be equal to so much doggy doodoo.

I dunno. I did not hear the sad. I heard the anger, and we sometimes express anger in by saying “it is sad when…”. Do you ever perceive anyone as having a low value? Are the words “jerk” “idiot” “moron” “evil” (referring to a person) “worthless” etc. absent from your vocabulary and/or thoughts? Your use of “sad” in that other post sounded fairly biting. I can relate to the resentment. But sadness? When someone says something I find insulting, I do not feel sad, I feel anger and resentment.

And really, if what you felt was sadness, what reason was there to forgive? Are you sure you did you not hold something against me? It sure sounded like it.

Of course, you are dedicated to respecting others, and I appreciate that. But when we get that notion in our head that someone is equal to one of the negative words I said above, our empathy is automatically blocked. We are blinded by resentment and anger. We don’t decide to think negatively about someone and our empathy is blocked, it is a natural reaction, to me, a reaction from our conscience.

Did you watch the movie, the Green Mile? A cruel guard was punished by the inmate with special powers. People took joy in this part. We love to see those we resent “get their due”. But in order for such joy to happen, our empathy has to be blocked.

Your personal comments directed to my spirituality are noted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

However, this thread is about Original Sin, and not about what I do or do not do in my personal spiritual life. In addition, there is a possible “Catch 22”, when you clearly and definitively pointed out in post 867 that –
“Blindness is automatic.” and “We are born ignorant.”
Note to readers. My first response to post 867, that “Blindness is automatic” and “We are born ignorant” is post 875. My reaction to those assumptions regarding human nature is that they are insulting to humankind.

Naturally and probably many people can have the personal opinion that you and I are automatically blind and born ignorant at least about a number of things in our material world. One of the examples seen in various Forums is the situation of a child and a hot stove. However, the Catholic Church has not defined doctrines about burnt fingers.

The Catholic Church does teach about human’s body and soul single nature and how it will be possible for you and me to be eternally present to the Beatific Vision in Heaven. (CCC, 1730; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867) While I have my universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition open, I suggest scanning Conscience, CCC, Index, page 776.

 

[OneSheep]

Your personal comments directed to my spirituality are noted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

However, this thread is about Original Sin, and not about what I do or do not do in my personal spiritual life. In addition, there is a possible “Catch 22”, when you clearly and definitively pointed out in post 867 that –
“Blindness is automatic.” and “We are born ignorant.”
Note to readers. My first response to post 867, that “Blindness is automatic” and “We are born ignorant” is post 875. My reaction to those assumptions regarding human nature is that they are insulting to humankind.

Naturally and probably many people can have the personal opinion that you and I are automatically blind and born ignorant at least about a number of things in our material world. One of the examples seen in various Forums is the situation of a child and a hot stove. However, the Catholic Church has not defined doctrines about burnt fingers.

The Catholic Church does teach about human’s body and soul single nature and how it will be possible for you and me to be eternally present to the Beatific Vision in Heaven. (CCC, 1730; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867) While I have my universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition open, I suggest scanning Conscience, CCC, Index, page 776.

Oh granny, you did it again. Please answer the question: Do you ever see anyone in a negative way?

Does not your resentment, like the rest of humanity, blind you to the value of the person you resent? Why would those words I mentioned even be in the human vocabulary if it were not for such blindness? Jesus referred to many as “blind”; are you saying He was referring to nothing? Let’s establish first whether blindness happens, then we can determine whether or not it is automatic.

As far as ignorance goes, the CCC refers to an informed conscience. We rely on our parents, experience, our Church, our society, etc. to inform our conscience, and such information comes from God. We are born with the hardware for a conscience, but it does not come informed, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, we all start from zero. This is not a situation of human depravity. It is a mystery. If we resent our ignorance, it is an opportunity for forgiveness.

When I read “thank you for sharing your thoughts” I again heard a little resentment, which is understandable. Did I receive that wrong too? And, by the way, if I intruded in any way, I am sorry. I am trying to make a point, not trying to put you down. I think everyone can relate to the fact that when someone triggers our anger, we feel negatively toward the person. The person lands on our “list”.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for clearing that up.

If God is only love, has the teaching from the beginning been alittle wrong? I know the church has made its mistakes through the years etc, and there is alot more I need to learn, but if the God we know now loved us so much the fall would never have happened, thats my own struggle to accept.
Its like I haven’t found that missing link that helps me accept such a loving God, who was displeased at some point in our history enough to take away all we were promised, and then leaves us to have to believe in order to get to the promised heaven.

I sometimes think God came to this earth created all and then left us to it! And we have fought amongst ourselves trying to prove who God is, or whos God is real…

I think if I can see beyond human knowledge if thats possible, i might become more spiritual and find my own path.

Jesuit Father Anthony de Mello said, “If you are thinking negatively about anyone, you are living in an illusion”.

I don’t think it is humanly possible to see beyond human knowledge. However, we can certainly overcome the illusion de Mello referred to. We do so by forgiving everyone, including ourselves, including every aspect of ourselves.

For me, the “missing links” were the parts of myself that I thought bad. These are the most difficult things to encounter, but this is exactly where we can investigate and direct our understanding and forgiveness. Take hatred, for example. I first have to admit I sometimes hate. Do I condemn this aspect of myself? If so, I can investigate why God would give me the capacity to hate, how does the capacity to hate help mankind in some way? There is always an answer to these questions.

BTW: I don’t see that God is “only” love. I think it was St. Paul who said “God is Love”. I have trouble thinking of Love itself as a consciousness. So, to me, God is a consciousness who loves.

 

[OneSheep]

No I don’t see everything as black and white, there are many grey area’s. I learnt not to “judge a book by its cover” early on. But yes I’ve resented people, mostly who i’ve worked with, who I could see as selfish, lazy, but always got their own way and I and others had to put up with them. Took a while but I learnt to allow the tension to drift from me. But I wouldn’t want to kill them to get them out of my way!!

Interesting thing about black,white and grey. When I forgave the last thing I resented, that is, within my awareness, the one-dimensionality of the picture disappeared. Black and white are on a linear continuum, with shade of grey in between. Reconciling within reveals a 3 dimensional look at the whole, the one-dimensionality disappears.

It would be fruitful to consider those coworkers one at a time. I find that it takes painful humility to admit that I can be as selfish, lazy, and so forth as anyone else. Then I go deeper, to understanding and forgiving my own capacity for selfishness or laziness.

I admit that I can actually consider killing someone to get them out of my way. This is part of the function of the illusion. If people were incapable of the illusion, we would not be able to go to war against others over resources. The tribe that genetically had no empathy would win every time. Evolution would select for psychopathy, an inability to empathize.

Thankfully i’m self employed now! haha.

Me too, and I am thankful.

I’ve known a few alcoholics, it can be very difficult to understand something which you have not experienced.

Do you know the reason why God gave us blindness?

To me, God did not give us blindness, but God gave us the capacity for automatic blindness. I have posted this on thread before, but I cannot find it.

Let me pose this scenario:

Tribe A has evolved without a gene for empathy. They don’t get along well with each other, but they are absolutely ruthless when it comes to competing for resources against another tribe.

Tribe B has evolved with a gene for empathy. The individuals cannot kill another human, because they always see the value of the other. This tribe will not survive in a competitive situation.

To me, neither one of these scenarios probably ever happened. Without empathy, tribes could not exist. People would not get along, period. However, when humans were given a gene for empathy, the characteristic would have to have been accompanied by the capacity for temporary blindness, or the scenario for Tribe B would have been a reality. Chimpanzees have a rudimentary capacity for empathy, but they have no empathy for chimps in other bands. Chimps of other bands are often murdered to protect or expand territory. The blindness of dechimanzeeization is a survival mechanism, but this blindness helps those chimps survive.

Creation happens from disorder to order. It may seem brutal, but that is the way it is, and all is headed in the direction of Love. It just happens very slowly. The slowness is a mystery.

 

[grannymh]

Oh granny, you did it again. Please answer the question: Do you ever see anyone in a negative way?

Does not your resentment, like the rest of humanity, blind you to the value of the person you resent? Why would those words I mentioned even be in the human vocabulary if it were not for such blindness? Jesus referred to many as “blind”; are you saying He was referring to nothing? Let’s establish first whether blindness happens, then we can determine whether or not it is automatic.

As far as ignorance goes, the CCC refers to an informed conscience. We rely on our parents, experience, our Church, our society, etc. to inform our conscience, and such information comes from God. We are born with the hardware for a conscience, but it does not come informed, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, we all start from zero. This is not a situation of human depravity. It is a mystery. If we resent our ignorance, it is an opportunity for forgiveness.

When I read “thank you for sharing your thoughts” I again heard a little resentment, which is understandable. Did I receive that wrong too? And, by the way, if I intruded in any way, I am sorry. I am trying to make a point, not trying to put you down. I think everyone can relate to the fact that when someone triggers our anger, we feel negatively toward the person. The person lands on our “list”.

Regarding the above, I put in bold some interesting information.

As Catholics, we need to examine carefully the following from post 885.
As far as ignorance goes, the CCC refers to an informed conscience. We rely on our parents, experience, our Church, our society, etc. to inform our conscience, and such information comes from God. We are born with the hardware for a conscience, but it does not come informed, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed.

Yes, the* CCC* has a number of paragraphs regarding our informed conscience and some of that information comes from God and the Catholic Church along with other sources sampled above. And yes, we do rely on Catholic Church teachings when it comes to maintaining our conscience in our materialistic environment. And yes, we do reply on Catholic teachings when some of those other mentioned sources offer false information regarding our own nature and our relationship with God.

What is problematic for Catholics is this personal comment.
We are born with the hardware for a conscience,** but it does not come informed**, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed.

Our conscience, regardless of how it is described, comes complete.

Human assembly (putting together hardware and information) is not necessary because God did that when He directly created each person’s soul at conception. We need to be concerned by some kind of personal implication that God would create an essential spiritual capability in an incomplete state waiting to be “informed”. We can understand that using a conscience may have to wait for a newborn to mature sufficiently; but, that does not mean that the conscience was missing information.

Catholicism teaches that “man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…”
(CCC, 1776; CCC, 1954; CCC, cross-references in margins)

A law aka moral code aka means to attain the Beatific Vision eternally –
all this and more is inscribed by God, Himself, when He directly created us to be a spiritual being in the image of God, Himself.

 

[OneSheep]

[/INDENT]Our conscience, regardless of how it is described, comes complete.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

Are we talking apples and oranges?

Now, does blindness happen, or does it not?

 

[grannymh]

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

Are we talking apples and oranges?

Yes. Catholic teachings and…

Now, does blindness happen, or does it not?

At the moment, I yield to the readers who will eventually determine for themselves what kind of blindness can happen, how, when, where and why.

Until I return with additional affirmations of Catholic teachings…

CCC, 1784 is part of a Catholic teachings section titled “The Formation of Conscience.” I love your selection because the “interior law recognized by conscience” refers back to my post 888. Plus the idea of education being a lifelong task and the reference to human weakness and faults (not automatic blindness whenever it happens) is so true.

What is problematic for Catholics is this comment. Please refer to part in bold.
“We are born with the hardware for a conscience,** but it does not come informed**, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed.” from post 885.

Our conscience, regardless of how it is described, comes complete. Human assembly (putting together hardware and information) is not necessary because God did that when He directly created each person’s soul at conception. Catholicism teaches that “man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…”
(CCC, 1776; CCC, 1954; CCC, cross-references in margins)
We need to be concerned about any kind of implication that God would create an essential spiritual capability in an incomplete state waiting to be “informed”.

Please, do remember that the conscience continually has to be informed in accord with the “law” originally inscribed by God. Obviously, this aspect needs to be explored in the future. Personally, I believe that human nature has to be nailed down first.

Blessings to all…I will return eventually.

 

[simpleas]

The missing link is
first find the reasons God loved Adam and then determine how or the way God loved Adam. There are no wrong answers. So, please share whatever comes to your mind or your thoughts on spirituality since the Creator is Pure Spirit without restrictions.

In all honesty I have know idea how or why God loved Adam. Sounds abit silly, but trying to find a reason why God loved him, then became very disappointed enough to allow the cause all the effects of sin etc doesn’t ring true in my mind.

Obviously I understand the message of Christ, and I love him for it, but why I can’t fully understand the message of God on O.S makes me feel weak, and then I wonder how can I fully understand Christ if I don’t understand God on O.S.

Am I trying to believe there is no sin? Do I fully accept Christ is God? Question’s I deny, but how do I know I love God with my heart and not just with my mind?

Sorry I asked more than givin an answer

 

[grannymh]

In all honesty I have know idea how or why God loved Adam. Sounds abit silly, but trying to find a reason why God loved him, then became very disappointed enough to allow the cause all the effects of sin etc doesn’t ring true in my mind.

Actually, you have given me the needed insight as to how to proceed. It is my observation, how God loved Adam begins in Genesis 1: 26-27. This “how” stretches all the way to John 3:16, to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic Eucharist, and to the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a regular basis. Skip Genesis, chapter 3 for now.

Obviously I understand the message of Christ, and I love him for it, but why I can’t fully understand the message of God on O.S makes me feel weak, and then I wonder how can I fully understand Christ if I don’t understand God on O.S.

To me, the reason Jesus assumed (not absorbed) human nature is that He loved Adam from the beginning. There is a wonderful Scripture verse, somewhere, that describes the uniqueness of Jesus laying down His life. At this point, I am thinking about Adam as the person God created in whom is all humankind “as one body of one man.” (CCC, 404) Thus, Jesus freely dying on His cross is meant for you and me as descendants of Adam and Eve. I can understand Original Sin because I started at the foot of His cross.

Am I trying to believe there is no sin? Do I fully accept Christ is God? Question’s I deny, but how do I know I love God with my heart and not just with my mind?

Sorry I asked more than givin an answer

Loving God with one’s heart is not an either -or situation. We love God with both our heart and mind. The heart gives support to the mind and the mind supports the heart. In my opinion, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and humbly seeking the Sacrament of Reconciliation even when we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace are two great acts of love for God. Both pour out tremendous graces, which help us daily to the end of our life.

Most likely we will continue to question ourselves forever. Good can come from those questions even when we do not fully answer them. Good comes, in spite of daunting questions, when we choose to remain faithful to Jesus and His Catholic Church especially when some things are hard to understand.

I will return to these ides eventually.

 

[OneSheep]

At the moment, I yield to the readers who will eventually determine for themselves what kind of blindness can happen, how, when, where and why.

It is quite simple, really. We are blind until we forgive people against whom we hold any negativity. We are blind until we repent from the sin that enslaves our minds. I’m having trouble understanding why you have any hesitation to admitting that people are subject to blindness. It’s a matter of observation. There is nothing in the CCC that negates that people are blinded. I do hope readers can relate to the idea, as Jesus also referred to people’s blindness, even from the cross. I don’t understand what triggered your anger.

I’m not going to press on the issue with you. We obviously have very different minds on the matter.

Until I return with additional affirmations of Catholic teachings…

CCC, 1784 is part of a Catholic teachings section titled “The Formation of Conscience.” I love your selection because the “interior law recognized by conscience” refers back to my post 888. Plus the idea of education being a lifelong task and the reference to human weakness and faults (not automatic blindness whenever it happens) is so true.

What is problematic for Catholics is this comment. Please refer to part in bold.
“We are born with the hardware for a conscience,** but it does not come informed**, any more than we can explain what a gigabyte is unless we are informed.” from post 885.

Our conscience, regardless of how it is described, comes complete. Human assembly (putting together hardware and information) is not necessary because God did that when He directly created each person’s soul at conception. Catholicism teaches that “man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…”
(CCC, 1776; CCC, 1954; CCC, cross-references in margins)
We need to be concerned about any kind of implication that God would create an essential spiritual capability in an incomplete state waiting to be “informed”.

The law is the software. The hardware is, well, I suppose it is the brain and the heart, it is our physical being. Awareness is not immediate, it is a lifelong education, just like the CCC says. The conscience is completely capable of being very informed, but it is not, it is a lifelong journey. I would like to hear from other Catholics who have a problem with this so that they can explain what it the issue here. “Education” is a matter of providing information and a skill set. Babies are born with all the capability, but are not aware of the information and some of the skill set. I’m sorry, granny, but as with the blindness issue, I see no contradiction from the CCC.

Here is what I am saying that you don’t like, I think. I said that “All sin involves blindness and/or ignorance.” If you disagree with this, then provide an counterexample. And please don’t say something general like “mortal sin” again. Provide a simple counterexample or give up trying to disprove my point.

Please, do remember that the conscience continually has to be informed in accord with the “law” originally inscribed by God. Obviously, this aspect needs to be explored in the future. Personally, I believe that human nature has to be nailed down first.

Blessings to all…I will return eventually.

Yes, the human is not born completely informed. We really have very little awareness at all.

 

[grannymh]

The first condition for God’s forgiveness.

In order for the Prodigal Son to reach the open arms of his father,
he had to first leave the foreign country.

 

[vames]

This was not a condition imposed by the father. When the father says “this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”, he offered a perfect description the past blindness of the prodigal son; when the father says “Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him” right after the son says “I am no longer worthy to be called your son”, it was an answer to the son’s ignorance about the father’s forgiveness - because the father knows that his guilty son thinks that it would be very hard or maybe impossible for him to earn the forgiveness of his father, to be loved again as a son.

But the father is wise - any parent is wiser than his child, because he’s older and has much more experience. Any parent knows about the blindness and ignorance of youth - been there, done that! This enables a parent to love and forgive a son even when the son is immersed in sin and therefore unable to repent and apologize. While the son was away, the father didn’t sit there ruminating on his anger, imagining all the possible punishments or wishing the son to be unhappy and to come back on his knees. Otherwise the father would have listened to the older son and would have admonished and punished the prodigal son. But the father simply wanted his son back and was happy that he came back.

I don’t think it’s so hard to acknowledge blindness and ignorance in others when we look at ourselves. Let’s recall what actually happened in our minds when we were immersed in a grave sin (criterion: grave matter). Can we say that back then we knew exactly as much as we know right now? Or do we say “if only I had known what I know today”? Our conscience is different when we are 6, 15, 30 or 40 years old, our understanding of the same teaching is different, because our life is different. How does a preteen from a happy family understand a teaching like “you shall not commit adultery”? I’m not saying that it’s necessary to commit adultery in order to understand the teaching; I’m saying that our experience of dealing with our and others’ sins and their consequences helps us understand the mechanisms of human behavior and expands our conscience.

There is an unasked question about the story of the prodigal son: what if the son had known that he doesn’t have to try hard to earn his father’s forgiveness, to say that he is unworthy and bad, to ask for punishments, to hesitate to come back because of his shame and fear? Would this knowledge about his father’s forgiveness have encouraged him to treat the father and the brother with arrogance, to say that in fact he didn’t anything wrong, to come and ask everybody to bring him the best robe and celebrate his return, to leave again at some point without the fear of being disowned?

My answer: such knowledge wouldn’t have changed anything. The son decided to come back because he realized that his choice of leaving was wrong: his experience taught him, so his eyes were opened and with this came the capacity of feeling guilty, remorseful, unworthy. The older brother personifies the blaming voice of his own conscience, which is not yet prepared to acknowledge the father’s forgiveness. That’s why the parable can’t be complete without the presence of the older brother.

 

[simpleas]

Interesting thing about black,white and grey. When I forgave the last thing I resented, that is, within my awareness, the one-dimensionality of the picture disappeared. Black and white are on a linear continuum, with shade of grey in between. Reconciling within reveals a 3 dimensional look at the whole, the one-dimensionality disappears.

It would be fruitful to consider those coworkers one at a time. I find that it takes painful humility to admit that I can be as selfish, lazy, and so forth as anyone else. Then I go deeper, to understanding and forgiving my own capacity for selfishness or laziness.

I admit that I can actually consider killing someone to get them out of my way. This is part of the function of the illusion. If people were incapable of the illusion, we would not be able to go to war against others over resources. The tribe that genetically had no empathy would win every time. Evolution would select for psychopathy, an inability to empathize.

Me too, and I am thankful.

To me, God did not give us blindness, but God gave us the capacity for automatic blindness. I have posted this on thread before, but I cannot find it.

Let me pose this scenario:

Tribe A has evolved without a gene for empathy. They don’t get along well with each other, but they are absolutely ruthless when it comes to competing for resources against another tribe.

Tribe B has evolved with a gene for empathy. The individuals cannot kill another human, because they always see the value of the other. This tribe will not survive in a competitive situation.

To me, neither one of these scenarios probably ever happened. Without empathy, tribes could not exist. People would not get along, period. However, when humans were given a gene for empathy, the characteristic would have to have been accompanied by the capacity for temporary blindness, or the scenario for Tribe B would have been a reality. Chimpanzees have a rudimentary capacity for empathy, but they have no empathy for chimps in other bands. Chimps of other bands are often murdered to protect or expand territory. The blindness of dechimanzeeization is a survival mechanism, but this blindness helps those chimps survive.

Creation happens from disorder to order. It may seem brutal, but that is the way it is, and all is headed in the direction of Love. It just happens very slowly. The slowness is a mystery.

Yes I think we connected many posts back about we can be just as others do, but we choose not too. I could choose to turn up late for work, take longer breaks than are given, tell lies about people, be disciplined by managers, but continue with my behaviour because I can get away with it, but I choose not to or more likely thats not the sort of person I grew to be. You can’t help to notice faults in people, just as they most likely see faults in me that i may not be aware of.

 

[simpleas]

Jesuit Father Anthony de Mello said, “If you are thinking negatively about anyone, you are living in an illusion”.

I don’t think it is humanly possible to see beyond human knowledge. However, we can certainly overcome the illusion de Mello referred to. We do so by forgiving everyone, including ourselves, including every aspect of ourselves.

For me, the “missing links” were the parts of myself that I thought bad. These are the most difficult things to encounter, but this is exactly where we can investigate and direct our understanding and forgiveness. Take hatred, for example. I first have to admit I sometimes hate. Do I condemn this aspect of myself? If so, I can investigate why God would give me the capacity to hate, how does the capacity to hate help mankind in some way? There is always an answer to these questions.

BTW: I don’t see that God is “only” love. I think it was St. Paul who said “God is Love”. I have trouble thinking of Love itself as a consciousness. So, to me, God is a consciousness who loves.

Wasn’t God looking at A&E negatively when they sinned?

Not sure yet what my missing link is, I don’t think I see parts of me that are bad, I know I can fail to do a, b, or c but I’ve never hated myself, I’ve not liked myself at one point but I think I was comparing myself to others.

 

[vames]

But doesn’t this show that Adam was different from us after all? If the concept of OS is invalid, then why don’t we possess this knowledge now, from birth? Why should we need to regain it now, via or beginning with faith?

It seems to me that the only reason man could think, however dimly, that he could be like God, is because he wasn’t/isn’t God. IOW, man’s potential for sinning doesn’t come directly from free will, rather it comes from his inherent inability to have the perfect wisdom of God; free will is neutral. And knowledge is easier to attain, while, for the creature, perhaps, wisdom takes time and experience.

If fear of the Lord really is the beginning of wisdom, it seems to me in any case that by Adam’s act he shows that he had no real fear of God. I think that Adam didn’t suffer from concupiscence, or even lack of knowledge per se; he suffered from lack of wisdom. Concupiscence means inordinate desire, but Adams desire was ordinate-the desire to be like God, which he wasn’t yet-he was just the raw material, so to speak. He lacked the wisdom to know that he can’t be like God, apart from God. Only God can divinize man; only God can grant immortality; man must remain partnered with God to have his full intended integrity. Man’s righteousness comes, in part, from knowing that his righteousness comes from God, and so freely subjugating himself to Him. Man’s freedom allows him to depart from that righteousness, God’s righteousness, from God’s authority, from God.

And I think that’s the heart of the matter. OS means that man is apart from God. Our problem isn’t in our not being able to forgive, first of all; rather its prior to that-it’s in the sin that would require forgiveness, and that sin comes from our apartness from God, which OS or AS introduced. And the true remedy for that is communion with God, which He proves that He desires via His revelation in the person of Jesus Christ; His forgiveness being the open door back to that communion. I appreciate a simple and yet profound statement of Pope Benedict’s from Spe Salvi:
"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

Of course we can’t blame the existence of free will for our sins. The harder part is to acknowledge that, like the free will, everything that we are endowed with is equally blameless for our sins - ex. the existence of genital organs and the sex drive are not bad things that Adam and his descendants could have done without. We throw the baby with the bathwater when we isolate the concept of “sensitive appetite”, draw an opposition between “sensitive appetite” and reason and name this opposition “concupiscence” (CCC 2515: Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason), because sooner or later we end up by conceiving our being as fragmented, dissociated between “sensitive appetite” and reason and by suspecting, hating and repressing our “sensitive appetite”.

In reality, our reason and our “sensitive appetite” are equally solidary and unseparable when we do good things and when we do bad things. Isn’t our reason the best instigator and advocate of our sins when we commit them? All the arguments and excuses and loopholes and encouragements are the work of reason. Even when we say “I don’t want to think about that now, I only want to (insert grave matter)”, this is a work of reason. We allow ourselves to do that - we are not animals “dragged” by their instincts. That’s why we say at the Confiteor: “I have sinned in thought, in speech, in work, in the purity of mind and of the body” instead of saying “I have sinned because of a movement of my sensitive appetite contrary to my reason”.

A scrupulous man will seek to suspect, hate and repress his “sensitive appetite”, thinking (wrongly) that his senses and body and feelings are to blame, are inferior, despicable and can “drag” him on their own towards him, behind the back of his reason that somehow stands above, intact, detached when he sins. A very scrupulous man will realize the decisive role of reason in his choices and will seek to suspect, hate and repress his reason too. But living with such ideas is very problematic, so there comes the need to establish a “bad bank” (sooo… what to throw in it? the body, the sensitive appetite, the feelings) in order to preserve our self-esteem and our hope that the rest of our being is still good, like a city where God can still find 5 or 10 righteous people. There’s an old prayer that says “God, you know that in my soul there is a part that is still good”. The prayer is sincere, I have prayed it many times and I still do. But I know that such a separation is metaphorical and in reality we are one whole being: “in thought, in speech, in work, in the purity of mind and of the body” represent our whole being and not things that work separately on their own. That’s why I insist that an Adam without “concupiscence” wouldn’t have been able to sin.

(cont’d)

 

[vames]

When we speak about self-control, it’s not about controlling the “sensitive appetite” by the power of reason, but about controlling our reason too. How? By wisdom. The reason has the capacity to ignore and forget and twist a moral teaching in order to allow us to sin. The very capacity of ignoring, of forgetting, of becoming blind is a huge blessing, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to concentrate on what we have to do at a given moment (think about someone who constantly relives a bad experience of a destructive earthquake or feels constantly guilty because he can’t dedicate each moment of his life to a charitable cause). But we can see that a particular sin (committed by us or others) has very bad consequences, so we can rationally choose to awaken and reawaken a moral teaching instead of finding rational arguments to ignore it.

The CAF is full of people who say “this teaching of the Church (…) is very hard, I can’t understand it”. Are their consciences informed? Of course: they know that “you shall/shall not…”. What can they do? They can choose to say that the teaching is wrong and can be ignored, until they see the bad consequences in their lives, sooner or much later, or they can trust the teaching and obey it against their will until they see its benefits, sooner or much later. Both ways lead to wisdom. But the second way isn’t wisdom per se, because wisdom is dependent upon experience and isn’t synonymous with obedience or innocence or mere knowledge of the law. My priest used to say: see, God didn’t put Adam in the Eden to sit there like a sheltered puppet, he has to make an effort to grow up, to live in the world, to see what real life is about.

The hope in God’s forgiveness can’t be interpreted as a free pass - I can sin whenever I want, I can repent anyway and be saved. The same Pope Benedict spoke about “structures of sin” - when repeated sins harden our hearts and lead us to believe (rationally) that what we do is good for us or simply doesn’t matter. The hope in God’s forgiveness means that we aren’t lost, because the acute conscience of the sin (guilt, remorse, unworthiness) separates us not from God, but from the capacity of recognizing God’s image, God’s love in ourselves. This is the valuable lesson in the story of A&E, which is a sapiential story like the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. What is not so valuable is to derive from it the idea that God is an angry deity who doesn’t understand the lack of experience of A&E (His creatures), so He chose to punish the whole humankind, which is fallen and wounded because of their sin. People love shortcuts and “canned answers”, so anyone can say “why there is a Hitler? because of the OS/AS” like children say “why there are sunsets? because the sun is tired and has to go to sleep”. Fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not its end.

 

[simpleas]

Actually, you have given me the needed insight as to how to proceed. It is my observation, how God loved Adam begins in Genesis 1: 26-27. This “how” stretches all the way to John 3:16, to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic Eucharist, and to the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a regular basis. Skip Genesis, chapter 3 for now.

To me, the reason Jesus assumed (not absorbed) human nature is that He loved Adam from the beginning. There is a wonderful Scripture verse, somewhere, that describes the uniqueness of Jesus laying down His life. At this point, I am thinking about Adam as the person God created in whom is all humankind “as one body of one man.” (CCC, 404) Thus, Jesus freely dying on His cross is meant for you and me as descendants of Adam and Eve. I can understand Original Sin because I started at the foot of His cross.

Loving God with one’s heart is not an either -or situation. We love God with both our heart and mind. The heart gives support to the mind and the mind supports the heart. In my opinion, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and humbly seeking the Sacrament of Reconciliation even when we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace are two great acts of love for God. Both pour out tremendous graces, which help us daily to the end of our life.

Most likely we will continue to question ourselves forever. Good can come from those questions even when we do not fully answer them. Good comes, in spite of daunting questions, when we choose to remain faithful to Jesus and His Catholic Church especially when some things are hard to understand.

I will return to these ides eventually.

Yes I made a decision to attend daily mass (work permitting) during this advent season, even if the daunting questions creep up and make me want to turn my back.
You say the heart and mind work as one, which I think you could be right.
But how you experience God will be different from me or anyone else. We all experience life in our own way. Its like we do view God in a different light from each other.

To me, the God i have been taught about would never send anyone to hell, even if they did not repent, but is that a reflection of me.

Take the young soldier in london this year, killed in cold blood on the street in front of many people and his killer standing there proud to have killed for HIS God. I don’t like what this person has done, but hand on heart I would not have him killed. And so this is how I see God.
But another person may think of God very differently, they may want the killer dead for what he did, and so may also see the view that he will rot in hell too.

We can make God into what we want to believe he is, but how can we not?

 

[fhansen]

Of course we can’t blame the existence of free will for our sins. The harder part is to acknowledge that, like the free will, everything that we are endowed with is equally blameless for our sins - ex. the existence of genital organs and the sex drive are not bad things that Adam and his descendants could have done without. We throw the baby with the bathwater when we isolate the concept of “sensitive appetite”, draw an opposition between “sensitive appetite” and reason and name this opposition “concupiscence” (CCC 2515: Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason), because sooner or later we end up by conceiving our being as fragmented, dissociated between “sensitive appetite” and reason and by suspecting, hating and repressing our “sensitive appetite”.ous man will seek to suspect, hate and repress his “sensitive appetite”, thinking (wrongly) that his senses and body and feelings are to blame, are inferior, despicable and can “drag” him on their own towards him, behind the back of his reason that somehow stands above, intact, detached when he sins.

Concupiscence, in church usage, could be defined as “inordinate sensitive appetite”, not sensitive appetite per se. Its out-of-control

 

[vames]

Awareness is not immediate, it is a lifelong education, just like the CCC says. The conscience is completely capable of being very informed, but it is not, it is a lifelong journey. I would like to hear from other Catholics who have a problem with this so that they can explain what it the issue here. “Education” is a matter of providing information and a skill set. Babies are born with all the capability, but are not aware of the information and some of the skill set.

I guess one issue is the difficulty of reconciling the idea that God’s moral law is written in our heart (so the pagans / the invincibly ignorant can be saved simply if they follow the natural law) with the fact that people don’t “get” a certain teaching from the very moment when they receive it from parents/teachers/priests, as the mind of a freshly catechized 7-year-old can’t compare to the mind of an adult. Another issue may be the difficulty of reconciling the idea that God’s moral law is written in our heart with the fact that some teachings of the Church are changeable or more interpretable than we’d have thought (fasting on Fridays, burning heretics, the fate of the unbaptized, the purpose of marital relations etc).

Postulating an Adam who was created as a fully grown-up man who has the unique privilege of hearing God speaking to him spares us from the question “why can’t we be born fully knowledgeable about everything and fully able to avoid sin?” The canned answer is simple and very good, because it satisfies our tendency to blame, to find a culprit for everything that we don’t like: we could have been like Adam if Adam hadn’t sinned, but he sinned, so we are condemned to waste a lot of time to grow up and to be sooooo imperfect and prone to sin. But if we don’t think about human development as a punishment, we can appreciate it for what it is. I don’t envy a kitten who is able to mature so quickly. And surely I don’t envy Athena who was “born” fully armed and wise from Zeus’ forehead.

 

[vames]

Concupiscence, in church usage, could be defined as “inordinate sensitive appetite”, not sensitive appetite per se. Its out-of-control lust, gluttony, pride, pointing to an overall disorder we see everyday in our world. Shame/dualism existed long before the concept or teaching of concupiscence arrived on the scene.

“CCC 2515: Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason.” This supposes that the “inordinate” part can be attributed to a suspension or a defeat of reason and can be opposed to the power of reason, which is false. And the evolution from “sensitive appetite” from “inordinate sensitive appetite” is not a matter of this - as opposed to - that, white - as opposed to - black, but a matter of degree. Can you define the exact moment when sexual desire becomes lust, the appetite of eating becomes gluttony and the self-esteem and desire to dominate the environment becomes pride? Are you born fully equipped with such power of discernment and self-control?