Original Sin

[grannymh]

CCC 389 is Anselm, I was taught it as a child: God felt infinitely offended by Adam and Eve, so He needed an infinite reparation made by someone with an infinite merit; if you hammer a nail into a wall, you can extract the nail afterwards, but the hole still has to be filled.

Only that nobody explained:

1. how a finite man with a finite nail was found guilty of having hammered an infinite hole
2. why did God decide not only to feel infinitely offended, but also to demand an infinite reparation (“undoing the damage”, although God is perfect, self-sufficient and can’t be harmed by a creature)
3. why this infinite reparation had to take the form of a violent human sacrifice
4. why not even this violent human sacrifice, with the death of God the Son, was enough to satisfy God the Father, as long as the relationship between God and man obviously isn’t restored to the standards of Eden. People still die, get sick, earn their living “by the sweat of their brow”, there is pain in childbirth and nature suffers - so the divine curse towards Adam and Eve is intact. Besides, Redemption does not equal Salvation in the afterlife, as we know - it’s only opening the possibility of salvation, as anyone who commits even a single mortal sin before death is deemed worthy of eternal hell
5. why do we have to call 2, 3 and 4 FORGIVENESS of the Original Sin.

I did check St. Anselm of Canterbury. He is listed as a source for CCC 158, “Faith seeks understanding”… page 43. This is a marvelous paragraph worthy of deep attention.

What truly baffles me is the use of the word infinite in the above points in post 391 . Original Sin was restricted to a specific space and time and therefore it could not be infinite. Perhaps there is an underlying misunderstanding of the historical event at the beginning of human history and the historical event of Christ’s Resurrection.

Since points 1, 2, 3, present a doubt filled scenario of Original Sin, I am beginning to think that point 5 is a straw man or woman.

Another baffling idea (point 4) refers to the restoration of the standards of Eden. Looking through the first three chapters of Genesis, I do not find a reference to the standards of Eden. Aided by St. Paul and the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,* I do find additional information about Adam and humanity’s relationship with divinity.

After all the posts regarding the damage caused by Adam, I am not sure why Original Sin, which damaged a relationship, is so hard to understand. Here is some information. Please note the relationship of the second sentence to the first sentence. Original Sin is directly caused by Adam and the composition of that sin is the shattering of humanity’s relationship with divinity.
In regard to Original Sin, the “composition” of that sin is the drastic shattering of humanity’s relationship with Divinity. The true difficulty, in the case of Original Sin, is that Adam is not supernatural and therefore he cannot undo the damage he directly caused. Hopefully, people will recognize that Adam is not supernatural because he is a creature. This condition necessitates a True Man and True God Redeemer.
Please note that I do understand individual problems with certain Catholic doctrines. From what I have recently learned, there has been a lot of incomplete teaching regarding Original Sin. One poster dated this back to the 1950’s. My own research indicates that the seeds for Original Sin confusion were sown earlier.

 

[vames]

Since points 1, 2, 3, present a doubt filled scenario of Original Sin, I am beginning to think that point 5 is a straw man or woman.

Another baffling idea (point 4) refers to the restoration of the standards of Eden. Looking through the first three chapters of Genesis, I do not find a reference to the standards of Eden.

5 is an elementary question that arises not from doubt, but from the simple contemplation of the human-condition-as-the-result-of-Adam-being-cursed-by-God-and-after-the-Resurrection-of-Christ. I already wrote about that in post #285.

We are taught that God forgives the Original Sin and restores the relationship with man at the Baptism, right? Then how come that forgiveness is so limited (again, baptized people still die, get sick etc., as opposed to Adam and Eve who were immortal and immune to any pain and sorrow - these were the “standards of Eden”) and that the Salvation made possible by Redemption is so hard to attain, that despite all sacraments and good works, a single mortal sin before death is enough to attract an INFINITE punishment, as hell is INFINITE?

God is supernatural and INFINITE, yes, and hell is as infinite and supernatural as heaven, too. By contrast, man is natural, finite, his conscience is finite and his capacity of doing good or bad is finite. Could God have been satisfied by anything done by the finite Adam, Eve and their descendants in an effort to convince Him to forgive them and to fully restore the initial relationship between them and God? No chance. As you say, “Adam is not supernatural and therefore he cannot undo the damage he directly caused”. This is the very explanation for the Incarnation: God the Son became man to appease God the Father by dying instead of us. Thousands, millions, billions of finite humans sacrificing their lives could not have convinced God to forgive the Original Sin. But one sacrifice was enough, because Jesus was divine. Then what’s wrong in saying that Adam’s finite sin made God feel infinitely offended?

 

[grannymh]

5 is an elementary question that arises not from doubt, but from the simple contemplation of the human-condition-as-the-result-of-Adam-being-cursed-by-God-and-after-the-Resurrection-of-Christ. I already wrote about that in post #285.

We are taught that God forgives the Original Sin and restores the relationship with man at the Baptism, right? Then how come that forgiveness is so limited (again, baptized people still die, get sick etc., as opposed to Adam and Eve who were immortal and immune to any pain and sorrow - these were the “standards of Eden”) and that the Salvation made possible by Redemption is so hard to attain, that despite all sacraments and good works, a single mortal sin before death is enough to attract an INFINITE punishment, as hell is INFINITE?

God is supernatural and INFINITE, yes, and hell is as infinite and supernatural as heaven, too. By contrast, man is natural, finite, his conscience is finite and his capacity of doing good or bad is finite. Could God have been satisfied by anything done by the finite Adam, Eve and their descendants in an effort to convince Him to forgive them and to fully restore the initial relationship between them and God? No chance. As you say, “Adam is not supernatural and therefore he cannot undo the damage he directly caused”. This is the very explanation for the Incarnation: God the Son became man to appease God the Father by dying instead of us. Thousands, millions, billions of finite humans sacrificing their lives could not have convinced God to forgive the Original Sin. But one sacrifice was enough, because Jesus was divine. Then what’s wrong in saying that Adam’s finite sin made God feel infinitely offended?

Please do not think too badly of me – even though you have every right to.

I am a part-time writer/editor/researcher in the area of Adam and Original Sin and definitely not a debater which is what you are looking for. You ask a question. And my mind is searching for the underlying belief system which prompted the question. Some of the presented belief systems, here and there in the past years, are quite creative compared to Catholicism. Thus, I am grateful to learn about them – which helps me when I write the real truth of Catholicism.

As I said, I am not a debater.

Consequently, I may or may not respond to your many questions and the many questions of other posters. Or, I may continue commenting, in a general manner, about a particular point or on a belief system which is a contrast to Catholicism.

 

[vames]

Please do not think too badly of me – even though you have every right to.

Not only I don’t have such right (every CAF poster is free to respond according to his/her own preferences, without having to explain why and without being criticized for it), but I don’t have any reason to think badly of you. I remember you from various other threads and I appreciate your patience and civility towards all posters, regardless of their beliefs or confusions.

You said earlier: “From what I have recently learned, there has been a lot of incomplete teaching regarding Original Sin. One poster dated this back to the 1950’s. My own research indicates that the seeds for Original Sin confusion were sown earlier.” Would you like to elaborate a little?

 

[vames]

This might sound alittle “far out there” and my imagination has probably run alittle wild of late, but thinking about Adam having full knowledge of the consequence of disobeying God, had this all happened before. I know we not suppose to believe in reincarnation…i’m not sure what word would describe what i’m thinking?

Can anyone explain the following, as this passage from CCC is what put the idea of “we’ve been here before” into my head!

Let’s see the sources of the passage (CCC 359).
The first one is Gaudium et Spes:

1. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love,* fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.* // He Who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), is Himself the perfect man. // For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.

The second is a sermon by St Peter Chrysologus:

In the case of the first Adam, earth was changed into flesh; in the case of the second Adam, flesh was raised up to be God. // I am the first, that is, I have no beginning. I am the last, that is, I have no end. But what was spiritual, says the Apostle, did not come first; what was living came first, then what is spiritual. The earth comes before its fruit, but the earth is not so valuable as its fruit. The earth exacts pain and toil; its fruit bestows subsistence and life. The prophet rightly boasted of this fruit: Our earth has yielded its fruit. // Let us put on the complete image of our Creator so as to be wholly like him, not in the glory that he alone possesses, but in innocence, simplicity, gentleness, patience, humility, mercy, harmony, those qualities in which he chose to become, and to be, one with us.

Both describe our evolution, as individuals and as species, towards how God wants us to be. Jesus became man to show us the way towards our true fulfillment, He offers us the model of humanity that all the Adams and Eves should follow. This is a process, not a moment: the process of Creation is ongoing. “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (St Athanasius); “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (St Thomas Aquinas), both quoted in CCC 460. This is the business of becoming human: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, said Jesus. We are not alone, far from an unknown and abstract God: He was here, is here, wants us to know Him, to be like Him, to be with Him. St Teresa of Avila understood it when she wrote:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

 

[fhansen]

An example - Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity criticizes the old theory about a vengeful God needing reparation: “Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”. He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

One of the better explanations of the Atonement I’ve heard.

 

[OneSheep]

From Ratzinger text:

This love means that we can put aside our own attempts at justification, which at bottom are only excuses and range us against each other - just as Adam’s attempt at justification was an excuse, a pushing of the guilt on to the other, indeed in the last analysis an attempt to accuse God himself: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate …” (Gen 3.12). It demands that instead of indulging in the destructive rivalry of self-justification we accept the love of Jesus Christ that “stands in” for us, let ourselves be united in it, and thus become worshippers with him and in him. :

In a sense, we can “accuse” God. I’ve done it plenty of times. The buck stops with God. Everything about the human, our capacities for hate, anger, blindness, envy, greed, lust, all of the sins, comes from God. These are the appetites and human condition, and every single appetite and aspect of our nature comes from a loving God for the benefit of our own well-being and survival.

We can accuse God of love. We can accuse God of taking care of us, of blessing us with many of the same instincts He has given so many other creatures.

To me, because of our conscience’s drive to punish, we are very closed-minded about understanding sin. Every attempt to explain sin is interpreted as an action which has the ultimate purpose of excusing, acquitting, the sinner. Our consciences ferociously resist this. If it were not the words of the priest I knew, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”, I would have been stuck in the same rut.

I can take responsibility for my decisions, ignorant as I may be. I cannot take responsibility for not knowing what I don’t know. This goes back to the question of why human awareness happens so slowly. How will we ever answer that? I can take full responsibility of my greed, desire for status, envy, desire for power, etc. etc. because as I said above, these are gifts. They are gifts that I accuse God of giving us.

So, I wonder if our Pope Emeritus excluded this line of thought, or does he also see that every aspect of being a human is a gift?

 

[OneSheep]

All this overlooks the obvious fact that true justice found in Adam’s original relationship with our Creator can be wrathful from the position of humans. Wrathful can be a description

when one is describing the human consequences of Original Sin. In spite of all the semantics, God does not wait…John 3: 16.

What do you mean here, grannymh? It sounds something like perception of wrath.

BTW: The primacy of God’s love for us is at the Root of Jesus’ ministry and Catholicism. Love is unconditional. Conditional love is the workings of our conscience. Our conscience is a mechanism that says “You are bad” or “You are good” when we behave in certain ways.

 

[fhansen]

What do you mean here, grannymh? It sounds something like perception of wrath.

BTW: The primacy of God’s love for us is at the Root of Jesus’ ministry and Catholicism. Love is unconditional. Conditional love is the workings of our conscience. Our conscience is a mechanism that says “You are bad” or “You are good” when we behave in certain ways.

Good and evil are realities in the present state of affairs. Sin must be acknowledged as true or else forgiveness is unnecessary/fruitless. Unconditional love forgives sin in spite of sin’s opposition to or rejection of it.

 

[grannymh]

Not only I don’t have such right (every CAF poster is free to respond according to his/her own preferences, without having to explain why and without being criticized for it), but I don’t have any reason to think badly of you. I remember you from various other threads and I appreciate your patience and civility towards all posters, regardless of their beliefs or confusions.

You said earlier: “From what I have recently learned, there has been a lot of incomplete teaching regarding Original Sin. One poster dated this back to the 1950’s. My own research indicates that the seeds for Original Sin confusion were sown earlier.” Would you like to elaborate a little?

One of the first posts I read on CAF asked this question. How can Catholics believe in magical trees and a talking snake? This was eventually followed by the popular question. Why does God blame us for what someone else did?

Regarding the snake, it should have been obvious that the writer of the first three chapters of Genesis was searching for a “material” description of an “immaterial” being. From there, the discussion eventually went to the “teaching” that the whole of the first three Genesis chapters were symbols of some truths. The difficulty was that the original “teacher” did not go below the surface of good and bad and thus missed a number of Catholic doctrines.

As for God being the bad guy, there are a lot of creative explanations which, in their creativity, miss some key Catholic doctrines regarding Adam’s human nature.

To me, it sounded as if some very sincere Catholics had learned about Adam and Eve from those cutesy children’s books where large green leaves are appropriately placed.

The great thing about CAF is that there are lots of topics and a variety of contributors.
Thus, I could start piecing together the re-interpretations of foundational Catholic Doctrines, such as those about human nature’s original origin. Quotes and links, in posts, are very helpful. Consequently, I have a 32 page Church document from the beginning of the 20th century which may give me the main reason for Original Sin confusion. May? The odds are that it will.

 

[OneSheep]

Good and evil are realities in the present state of affairs. Sin must be acknowledged as true or else forgiveness is unnecessary/fruitless. Unconditional love forgives sin in spite of sin’s opposition to or rejection of it.

We are thinking along the same lines here, fhansen. Good happens, and bad happens. Our conscience is there to sort it all out. Like I have said before, emotions play a big part of conscience formation, and we react emotionally to violations of our conscience. Our conscience also seeks to find cause, and when we find the cause, our conscience automatically condemns it, it is “bad”. To me, suspicion is a specific activity of the conscience.

God created us with the capacity to lie. Individuals from other animal species lie to each other, and I think I mentioned the experiments with robots where they eventually lie to each other. The ability to lie helps with species survival.

So, here is another item to throw in the mix. If Adam ever had the opportunity to lie to Eve or any other creature, then it could be very possible that he projected that God was deceiving him. Of course, we may think it ridiculous that Adam thought God was pulling his leg!

But think of the circumstances that led to the rapid evolution of our intellect. Grog, the caveman, would tell Grok that a particular fruit was bad to eat. Grok would later see that Grog has fruit stains all over his face. If Grok was smart enough, he would recognize the lie, but when individuals lie to each other all the time, nothing is seen as truth, which is very dangerous for the tribe’s ability to work together. So, our consciences had to evolve, in part, in order to designate lying as bad, and the liar is resented, reprimanded, and perhaps ostracized. Grok with a conscience, if smart enough to recognize the lie, would come to resent Grog. “Grog is a stinking liar”. One particularly dangerous lie is “there is a predator coming!” There are individuals from a species of monkey in South America that do a “danger” call to get all of their comrades to leave when they see something good to eat. Please remember when I say “evolve” I always mean “given to us by God through the process of evolution.”

Adam would have only had to lie to a person or other creature one time in order to project that God was lying to him. Have you noticed that people who lie a lot are very suspicious of people? All of us have lied, and have varying degrees of wariness.

 

[simpleas]

zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

Came across this today, thought you all might find it interesting

 

[simpleas]

Let’s see the sources of the passage (CCC 359).
The first one is Gaudium et Spes:

The second is a sermon by St Peter Chrysologus:

Both describe our evolution, as individuals and as species, towards how God wants us to be. Jesus became man to show us the way towards our true fulfillment, He offers us the model of humanity that all the Adams and Eves should follow. This is a process, not a moment: the process of Creation is ongoing. “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (St Athanasius); “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (St Thomas Aquinas), both quoted in CCC 460. This is the business of becoming human: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, said Jesus. We are not alone, far from an unknown and abstract God: He was here, is here, wants us to know Him, to be like Him, to be with Him. St Teresa of Avila understood it when she wrote:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

But wasn’t that the problem from the beginning, Adam wanted to be like God? Ok maybe not on Gods terms, so now that we suffer in sin we can become like God?

 

[grannymh]

But wasn’t that the problem from the beginning, Adam wanted to be like God? Ok maybe not on Gods terms, so now that we suffer in sin we can become like God?

My apology, but this is technically removed from Catholicism to the point that I am not sure what is meant by the use of “from the beginning”.

Note: I consider that the beginning of Adam’s relationship with God was when Adam was given his spiritual rational soul, including the soul’s rational intellect’s tool (conscience) used for discerning right from wrong according to the law of God written deep within the human person. The voice of conscience speaks gently to us to “do this” or “shun that.”

For additional information about our conscience…

From* Guadium et Spes,* # 16

• 1. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

 

[grannymh]

From reading comments and questions on previous pages, I sense confusion between forgiving a sin and the results of the sin.

At one of Life’s Healing Journey retreats, a visiting priest explained forgiveness in this manner.

He referred to the crowded parking lot. Then he offered this scenario. “Suppose,” he began. "I get to the parking lot in time to see another car back into mine. The driver gets out and tells me that the crowded lot made it difficult to maneuver and he hopes I will forgive him.

Being the good priest that I am…" said while he winked at us in the audience. “Being the good priest that I am, forgiving others as I was taught, I would say to the man that of course I forgive you. That being sincerely said, I would then ask the man for his name and address so I could send him the bill for the repair of my car.”

Another way to look at forgiveness and the results of sin is this example from second grade. The nun had us picture a bow and arrow type contest where there was a target that had to be hit. The arrows stuck in the target. When the contest was over, a man came around and pulled each arrow out of the target. Then the nun said that the man pulling out the arrows was, in a way, like God forgiving us for shooting the arrows.

Note: Never mind that this was a contest and naturally the arrows would stick in the target. However, as I remember, none of us pointed out the inconsistency of the example. We were that caught up in the nun’s words. (She must have been an actress before the nunnery.)

The nun paused dramatically indicating that the point of the example was about to be revealed. “Now picture the target after the arrows have been removed,” she whispered. “Do you see the holes the arrows left in the target?” Of course, we could picture those holes!
She had us in her hands as she gave us the meaning of her story. “Those holes,” she said, “are the result of the arrows. They remained. When we sin, our sins are like the arrows hitting the target. Even when we are forgiven – when the arrows are lovingly removed – the results of sins, like those holes, remain.”

God demonstrated His forgiveness of Adam by promising a Reconciler. But the results of the Original Sin remain, like the holes made by arrows.

 

[OneSheep]

Note: I consider that the beginning of Adam’s relationship with God was when Adam was given his spiritual rational soul, including the soul’s rational intellect’s tool (conscience) used for discerning right from wrong according to the law of God written deep within the human person. The voice of conscience speaks gently to us to “do this” or “shun that.”

For additional information about our conscience…

From* Guadium et Spes,* # 16

• 1. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

So, grannymh, do you ever hear a voice in side that says “you are stupid” when you make an error? Is there a voice that says “you look dumb” when you go to a party where everyone else is wearing nicer clothing? Is there a voice that says “you are lazy” when you aren’t working as fast as usual?

These, to me, are also the voice of our conscience. Some of our rules are very trivial, but they are part of the conscience all the same. The conscience is the voice of God for those who do not know a voice deeper within, a voice which says “I love you, I forgive you, I accept you always, even when your conscience does not.”

We have some control over the content of our consciences, but once a rule is formed, it can be difficult to change, and the rules in our personal rulebooks can remain latent for years, and then pop up seemingly out of nowhere. All of a sudden, we react (overreact, sometimes) to something someone says or does. This, again, is the working of our conscience. Our conscience has to be kept in check. Sometimes, our conscience says things like “you should never forgive the unrepentant”.

I cannot think of an example of people “growing sightless as a result of habitual sin”. Can you? When people sin, it is because they are blind or ignorant already.

 

[vames]

But wasn’t that the problem from the beginning, Adam wanted to be like God? Ok maybe not on Gods terms, so now that we suffer in sin we can become like God?

Bingo!
The fruit seen by Adam and Eve was “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom”. The fruit was good, since all God’s creation was good, and they could naturally recognize the goodness of the fruit (it wasn’t an illusion), because they were created good. To eat, to enjoy the beauty of nature and to desire wisdom are natural, fundamental attributes of man and all of them are good. The Church doesn’t teach that any of them is a sin. So why did God forbid them to eat the fruit and to acquire wisdom?

The text of Genesis explains that God wanted to stop his creatures from knowing good and evil because He didn’t want them to become “like Him”. But this reminds us rather of various mythologies with humans who rebel against multiple jealous gods and manage to steal some of their powers, since those gods weren’t omnipotent and omniscient and had to defend themselves from the threat represented by humans: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

IMO a way to make sense of this interdiction, in light of our history, is that self-control and the capacity to delay gratification, as psychologists say, is essential for our development - see the famous experiment with marshmallows:
newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer

 

[vames]

God demonstrated His forgiveness of Adam by promising a Reconciler. But the results of the Original Sin remain, like the holes made by arrows.

Yes, I was taught the same example by my priest (post #391). But filling a hole in a wall or paying the repair bill for a damaged car have to do with measurable things (an exact amount of cement, an exact sum of money). In such cases, to speak of forgiveness as lack of resentment towards the wrongdoer is a moot point: if the damaged goods are repaired by the wrongdoer, what would be the motive to hold grudges against him? Forgiveness is relevant when the damage isn’t quantifiable and a reparation that matches the harm is objectively impossible. If A kills B’s child, even if A kills B, it can’t bring the child back to life and undone A’s grief. So A can decide to express her forgiveness by sparing B’s life or to express her resentment in various ways - by burning B’s house, by kidnapping and torturing B, by killing B and even his family.

The text of Genesis affirms that Adam and Eve have lost Eden and the immunity to death and suffering as the result of God’s curse: it was the punishment decided by God. He could have decided just to strip them of immortality, according to the initial warning (if you eat, you will die), to apply a milder punishment or not to punish them at all. Instead, He opted to apply the harshest assortment of punishments to the whole human race and to maintain most of them even after the Atonement. Is this an expression of forgiveness or an expression of resentment? And if this is God’s way, why Jesus didn’t explain His message “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” as “Express your resentments and punish hard those who harm you”?

 

[vames]

So, I wonder if our Pope Emeritus excluded this line of thought, or does he also see that every aspect of being a human is a gift?

The drive to punish, as you called it, is well expressed in the old belief that the vast majority of souls end up in hell, a lesser number in purgatory and only a tiny minority are saved, because most people are either unbaptized or unrepented sinners. In his encyclical “Spe Salvi”, Pope Emeritus contested this belief, saying that people whose choices in life made them become totally closed to love and truth or totally able to follow the path of sainthood are exceptions and that in the human normal life, even when bad choices are made, there always remains an openness to love and truth (you should check out what he says about purgatory, too).

This is the base of his optimistic perspective about humanity and that’s why he often referenced “the mustard seed”: no matter how small is the Church, how sad we are about the current state of things, how hard to see the image of God in some people, there is always hope. There is a passage from his book “Salt of the Earth” which is quite famous: “The core of faith rests upon accepting being loved by God, and therefore to believe is to say Yes, not only to him, but to creation, to creatures, above all, to men, to try to see the image of God in each person and thereby to become a lover. That’s not easy, but the basic Yes, the conviction that God has created men, that he stands behind them, that they aren’t simply negative, gives love a reference point that enables it to ground hope on the basis of faith”.
And here are some of his thoughts about Original Sin (feel free to ignore the rest).

 

[vames]

What I am talking about, in terms of the connection between dualism and forgiveness (lack of forgiveness) is personal, and it would be interesting to investigate this and see if others can relate. I am sure that St. Augustine saw this connection when he said “Through the Spirit, we see that whatever exists is good.”

It is as simple as this: I take up the task to forgive someone that I think is evil. After exercising the prayer, reflection, humility, and understanding that goes into forgiveness, with the help of God, I have forgiven. After I have forgiven the person, the person no longer appears evil. He may have been blind and ignorant, but not evil. My perception of evil as a description of his character was an automatic by-product of my own resentment. When my resentment is gone, so is the by-product. Do you see what I am saying? Feel free to give a counterpoint or share a different experience.

I for one agree with you, but I’ll try to play the devil’s advocate (no pun) and suppose that the labels evil / good people have to do rather with practical reasons.

I understand that X has been blind and ignorant when he has done bad things, but if X persists in doing bad things and harming people and shows no signs of changing his behavior, it entitles me to simplify my language for practical reasons and label him as “evil”, where “evil” is somehow the equivalent of “Don’t follow his example: danger!” or even “Avoid him: danger!” when I have enough reasons to fear that X will harm me or others. So the label “evil” shouldn’t prevent me to continue to understand his blindness and to harbor no resentment towards him. (Likewise, “he’s a good man” may mean not that I’m sure he can’t do anything wrong, but that I’ve noticed that his behavior is mostly good.) That’s why they say “love the sinner, hate the sin”. But it’s true that this phrase may be used as well to hide our incapacity of forgiveness, when we end up by concentrating so intensely on the sin that the sinner is in fact ignored as a person, reduced to his function of being a “plinth” of his sin.