Original Sin

[grannymh]

I’m not sure, though. Adam had knowledge, because he was given it.

The reason Adam had fundamental knowledge is because his basic human nature has a rational soul. He and we have the same basic nature; however, after Adam knowingly and freely chose to disobey God, human nature was wounded in a number of ways.

But it seems he lacked the wisdom to heed it, or else he wouldn’t have sinned.

Adam sinned simply because he had the choice. Wisdom is not some entity which overrides human’s curiosity and free will. Being a God which would be better than being a creature is an excellent temptation. That temptation, by the way, can be seen as the point where Adam needed to seek his Creator of his own accord and therefore freely attain his full perfection by cleaving to God. This view is in CCC, 1730-1731

The reason man is said to be divided within himself is because this knowledge that he denied is part of his own make-up-of his nature. It’s the knowledge that obedience of God is right-and there are consequences to disobedience.

The concept of man being divided within himself actually refers to humans after the Fall. Adam had *mastery of self because he was free from concupiscence. *This is from CCC, 377. With concupiscence as a result of Original Sin, one can easily see that man would become divided in himself.

In the end it’s really the very knowledge of God that was denied. In any case, the question that remains is, why did Adam sin? And I think it’s a valid question, one which theologians have addressed before.

I am a tad confused because Adam certainly had knowledge of God which he did not deny. Genesis chapters 2 & 3 have plenty of examples. Adam’s descendants retained Adam’s knowledge regarding Genesis 3:15. (CCC, 410) which is obvious through the prophets in the Old Testament. It is ourselves who wish to downplay Adam’s knowledge as an excuse for his decision.

As to why Adam seriously sinned. There are lots of possible reasons. Pride is often given as a reason. Maybe it was envy. Or thirst for power. Seriously, trying to guess Adam’s initial motivation would be similar to counting how many angels can dance on the head of pin. Perhaps one reason we do not have his exact reasoning in writing is that we need to face the reality of multiple reasons for serious sin.

 

[fhansen]

The reason Adam had fundamental knowledge is because his basic human nature has a rational soul. He and we have the same basic nature; however, after Adam knowingly and freely chose to disobey God, human nature was wounded in a number of ways.

Adam sinned simply because he had the choice. Wisdom is not some entity which overrides human’s curiosity and free will. Being a God which would be better than being a creature is an excellent temptation. That temptation, by the way, can be seen as the point where Adam needed to seek his Creator of his own accord and therefore freely attain his full perfection by cleaving to God. This view is in CCC, 1730-1731

So if lack of wisdom wasn’t the problem, why do you think Adam made the choice to sin? Isn’t it rather foolish for the created to think it could actually be the creator, for the created to not “seek his Creator of his own accord and therefore freely attain his full perfection by cleaving to God”? Don’t you think it would’ve been rather foolish for the Prodigal to remain in the pigsty, far from home?

The concept of man being divided within himself actually refers to humans after the Fall. Adam had *mastery of self because he was free from concupiscence. *This is from CCC, 377. With concupiscence as a result of Original Sin, one can easily see that man would become divided in himself.

Did I somewhere insinuate otherwise?

I am a tad confused because Adam certainly had knowledge of God which he did not deny. Genesis chapters 2 & 3 have plenty of examples. Adam’s descendants retained Adam’s knowledge regarding Genesis 3:15. (CCC, 410) which is obvious through the prophets in the Old Testament. It is ourselves who wish to downplay Adam’s knowledge as an excuse for his decision.

He denied God by mistrusting Him; God is not the god of one who rejects His authority. We have to freely choose to obey the first and greatest commandments. That’s how God becomes our God again, so the least to the greatest will know Him, fulfilling Jer 31,

As to why Adam seriously sinned. There are lots of possible reasons. He could have been tired of gardening. Seriously, trying to guess Adam’s initial motivation would be similar to counting how many angels can dance on the head of pin. Perhaps one reason we do not have his exact reasoning in writing is that we need to face the reality of multiple reasons for serious sin.

But you seem to be adamant about the reasons why Adam shouldn’t have sinned-and Christians have asked why he did for years. Maybe someone, apparently not you granny, will someday answer it.

 

[vames]

But are you acknowledging and forgiving sin-or denying the reality of sin altogether?

Obviously, acknowledging the existence of a sin creates the need and the difficulty of forgiving. When we don’t see anything sinful, we don’t have any reason to forgive. In my example, if we thought that killing X is a good thing or a morally neutral thing, any discussion about forgiveness would be absurd.

@ All: Happy Thanksgiving :flowers: and thanks for being here

 

[fhansen]

Obviously, acknowledging the existence of a sin creates the need and the difficulty of forgiving. When we don’t see anything sinful, we don’t have any reason to forgive. In my example, if we thought that killing X is a good thing or a morally neutral thing, any discussion about forgiveness would be absurd.

@ All: Happy Thanksgiving :flowers: and thanks for being here

Good answer. Thank you, too, vames…

 

[simpleas]

Happy Thanksgiving to you all!!

 

[simpleas]

I’m not sure, though. Adam had knowledge, because he was given it. But it seems he lacked the wisdom to heed it, or else he wouldn’t have sinned. The reason man is said to be divided within himself is because this knowledge that he denied is part of his own make-up-of his nature. It’s the knowledge that obedience of God is right-and there are consequences to disobedience. In the end it’s really the very knowledge of God that was denied. In any case, the question that remains is, why did Adam sin? And I think it’s a valid question, one which theologians have addressed before.

Will we ever answer that question? Why did Adam sin?
I’ve thought about this everyday for the past couple of months!

What I haven’t concluded yet is when we hear that Adam walked with God, spoke to him, Knew him, is this to be taken literal?
Did Adam know God really? It seems he did, as he knew some form of love, God gave him a wife, but through the temption of the serpent, Eve causes Adam to sin. Was it because Adam loved Eve more than God.
But then that makes stumble, because if Adam saw and knew God and felt only love and goodness why would he want to become God.
But when I think these questions, I think they only arise in my generation, every generation has changed, our ways of thinking and teaching are very different now, we aren’t as quick to accept a simple story.
And that could be our problem too!

Its mind blowingly interesting…

 

[grannymh]

But you seem to be adamant about the reasons why Adam shouldn’t have sinned-and Christians have asked why he did for years. Maybe someone, apparently not you granny, will someday answer it.

Some of the “question(s)” have changed in the 21st century.

I defend the Catholic concept that pre-Fall Adam had the capability to sin. Adam is created in a state of spiritual freedom which is another way to look at being in the image of God. Being an “image” means that Adam’s spiritual freedom is not equal to God’s infinite freedom from material and/or human restrictions. Along the lines of freedom, we can observe that Original Sin is an abuse of Adam’s freedom. (CCC, 396-397; CCC, 1730-31) Adam’s state of spiritual freedom has been transmitted to his descendants because his descendants receive Adam’s human nature which automatically includes the God-created soul at conception. The unity of our soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body, that is, it is because of our spiritual soul that the [material] matter becomes a human person. (CCC, 362-366)

Please note that because of human spiritual freedom, a person can destroy her or his own personal spiritual sharing in God’s life. When we are brave enough to go below the surface of human spiritual freedom, we find our soul’s spiritual capabilities of rational intellect and free will.

Bravery is necessary in this century. Bravery accepts personal responsibility for freely and deliberately committed mortal sins. Covering up responsibility contains the possibility of the human-originated idea that God forgives without the conditions connected to freedom. One of the obvious conditions, based on human nature per se, is that a person in the state of mortal sin uses her or his freedom to seek the state of Sanctifying Grace through the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. Other conditions include acknowledgement, contrition (the most important act of the penitent, CCC, Glossary, Contrition, page 872), and repentance.

God’s forgiveness, in the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, removes the state of mortal sin and restores the state of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[fhansen]

Some of the “question(s)” have changed in the 21st century.

I defend the Catholic concept that pre-Fall Adam had the capability to sin. Adam is created in a state of spiritual freedom which is another way to look at being in the image of God. Being an “image” means that Adam’s spiritual freedom is not equal to God’s infinite freedom from material and/or human restrictions. Along the lines of freedom, we can observe that Original Sin is an abuse of Adam’s freedom. (CCC, 396-397; CCC, 1730-31) Adam’s state of spiritual freedom has been transmitted to his descendants because his descendants receive Adam’s human nature which automatically includes the God-created soul at conception. The unity of our soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body, that is, it is because of our spiritual soul that the [material] matter becomes a human person. (CCC, 362-366)

Please note that because of human spiritual freedom, a person can destroy her or his own personal spiritual sharing in God’s life. When we are brave enough to go below the surface of human spiritual freedom, we find our soul’s spiritual capabilities of rational intellect and free will.

Bravery is necessary in this century. Bravery accepts personal responsibility for freely and deliberately committed mortal sins. Covering up responsibility contains the possibility of the human-originated idea that God forgives without the conditions connected to freedom. One of the obvious conditions, based on human nature per se, is that a person in the state of mortal sin uses her or his freedom to seek the state of Sanctifying Grace through the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. Other conditions include acknowledgement, contrition (the most important act of the penitent, CCC, Glossary, Contrition, page 872), and repentance.

God’s forgiveness, in the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, removes the state of mortal sin and restores the state of Sanctifying Grace.

OK. Happy Thanksgiving, granny!

 

[fhansen]

Will we ever answer that question? Why did Adam sin?
I’ve thought about this everyday for the past couple of months!

What I haven’t concluded yet is when we hear that Adam walked with God, spoke to him, Knew him, is this to be taken literal?
Did Adam know God really? It seems he did, as he knew some form of love, God gave him a wife, but through the temption of the serpent, Eve causes Adam to sin. Was it because Adam loved Eve more than God.
But then that makes stumble, because if Adam saw and knew God and felt only love and goodness why would he want to become God.
But when I think these questions, I think they only arise in my generation, every generation has changed, our ways of thinking and teaching are very different now, we aren’t as quick to accept a simple story.
And that could be our problem too!

Its mind blowingly interesting…

I think the reason that it’s an interesting-and maybe important-question is because it’s related to why any of us sin.

 

[grannymh]

I think the reason that it’s an interesting-and maybe important-question is because it’s related to why any of us sin.

I completely agree with this perspective. However, I am more interested in the contemporary questions about how Adam committed Original Sin, including its results. How Adam is capable of sinning is connected to the basic understanding of our own human nature. Why he intellectively and freely did what he did is open for other people’s discussion which will never end.

Believe it or not “why any of us sin” is exactly why I connect our spirituality with correct knowledge of both Original Sin and Adam. Current difficulties arise because even an incidental misinterpretation of the Adam Story or the misinterpretations of general teachings of Catholicism such as forgiveness and conscience can grow and expand to the dangerous point of damaging the base for our spirituality which is based on a “good” God. For example, the misunderstanding of Adam’s “innocence” easily leads to accusations that God is …
Therefore, God is not so good after all…

 

[OneSheep]

Ok maybe something like this.

I see around me friends brought up catholic in committed relationships outside of marriage and with children. They know the teaching on living in sin, but they still have decided to live like this. So maybe they bury their heads in the sand, or they just get on with life in a society that no longer promotes the idea of living in sin…

So, here is the knowledge gap, IMO: These people were probably brought up with married parents. Do they realize what it is going to be like when their children are teenagers and wanting to be sexually active? It will be very difficult to control when an example has already been set. In addition, do these married couples have the third ply in the cord, or is their commitment based on feelings of love, political congruity, common interests, etc. All these things can pass, if not temporarily. Does their commitment involve a commitment to love and serve God? The importance and value of these things are part of the knowledge gap.

Not sure about our leaders of the world, they say we must go to war in other countries, yet many innocent people especially children suffer the consequences, or are killed. Is this not sinning against God and ourselves in full knowledge?
Like you have said until people learn to forgive we can’t ever expect to have peace.
And are we just as much to blame as we vote to put people in power, then stand by watching all the terrors unfold?

We are certainly not to stand by. I belong to, and donate to, a number of groups that promote international reconciliation and non-violence. I am also active in efforts locally to stop gang violence.

In order to go to war, the aggressor must already be blind to the value, the humanity of his enemy. Their empathy has been blocked by condemnation. Look at the reaction from our congress to Obama’s efforts at making peace with Iran. Diplomacy may halt war, but what do we do to promote a lasting peace, one that begins with forgiveness?

Do these responses make sense? Did I address the question? Would you like to tackle some more examples? Most often, we have to commit the question to our own prayers, because often one question answered leads to many more questions. However, there is always in my experience, a last question to answer. When I have answered the last question (with God’s help, of course) I no longer hold anything against the person about whom I am thinking negatively.

 

[fhansen]

I completely agree with this perspective. However, I am more interested in the contemporary questions about how Adam committed Original Sin, including its results. How Adam is capable of sinning is connected to the basic understanding of our own human nature. Why he intellectively and freely did what he did is open for other people’s discussion which will never end.

Believe it or not “why any of us sin” is exactly why I connect our spirituality with correct knowledge of both Original Sin and Adam. Current difficulties arise because even an incidental misinterpretation of the Adam Story or the misinterpretations of general teachings of Catholicism such as forgiveness and conscience can grow and expand to the dangerous point of damaging the base for our spirituality which is based on a “good” God. For example, the misunderstanding of Adam’s “innocence” easily leads to accusations that God is …
Therefore, God is not so good after all…

I do think the story of the Prodigal Son is meant to shed light on this, however. A concept of man needing to learn of his need for God, combined with the Church teaching that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”, supports the idea that God, knowing Adam would sin, planned from the beginning to use his failure to bring about an even greater good. We’re absolutely obligated by God’s justice and goodness themselves to obey Him-such accountability, such limitation, is only good for man. But we don’t know the reason why, until we’ve done some “journeying”, perhaps until we’ve swam in the lake of the knowledge of good and evil for awhile.

 

[grannymh]

I do think the story of the Prodigal Son is meant to shed light on this, however. A concept of man needing to learn of his need for God, combined with the Church teaching that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”, supports the idea that God, knowing Adam would sin, planned from the beginning to use his failure to bring about an even greater good. We’re absolutely obligated by God’s justice and goodness themselves to obey Him-such accountability, such limitation, is only good for man. But we don’t know the reason why, until we’ve done some “journeying”, perhaps until we’ve swam in the lake of the knowledge of good and evil for awhile.

The story of the Prodigal Son is a good point to bring up since we have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight.

When someone refers to the concept of man or man in the generic sense, I always want to ask pre-Fall or post-Fall. Adam, being is the state of original holiness, knew his need for God. The Genesis writer of the first three chapters put that need into the negative Genesis 2: 15-17.

I am learning the meaning of God’s Economy of Salvation. You referred to it by mentioning the idea that God, knowing Adam would sin, planned from the beginning … You may be interested in CCC, Glossary, Economy of Salvation, (Divine Economy), page 876)

Would you say that our knowing the plan of God, John 3: 16, is one of the reasons we believe in the goodness of God?

 

[vames]

I’m not sure, though. Adam had knowledge, because he was given it. But it seems he lacked the wisdom to heed it, or else he wouldn’t have sinned. The reason man is said to be divided within himself is because this knowledge that he denied is part of his own make-up-of his nature. It’s the knowledge that obedience of God is right-and there are consequences to disobedience. In the end it’s really the very knowledge of God that was denied. In any case, the question that remains is, why did Adam sin? And I think it’s a valid question, one which theologians have addressed before.

The division between WHAT-TO and HOW-TO - between knowledge (of the law) and wisdom (of living in harmony with our knowledge of the law) is very well expressed in Romans 7 when Paul says: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate”. This is the basic, universal perplexity of man when he does something wrong and sees others doing something wrong. The same perplexity is present when we see that people go to Confession and then repeat the same sins over and over again. The same perplexity is present when we hear Jesus saying that we should forgive not once or twice, but “seventy times seven”. So this division raises two questions: 1) what causes this division? 2) how to avoid and repair this division?

The ancient answers so far to 1):

• The Serpent as the source of temptation (Eve: “The serpent tricked me”)
• The Sin as a separate force (Paul: “But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me”)
• The Flesh as the dominion of Sin (Paul: “I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh… I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members”)
• The Devil as the ruler of the world (Paul: “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places”)
• The World as the dominion of Devil (Paul: “the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air”)
• Other people as a source of temptation (Adam: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me the fruit”).

So the circle is nicely closed: something that doesn’t come from inside us (the serpent/spirits of the air/devil) implants the sin into the human flesh and manages to conquer the world and to hold it captive, which in turn makes each of us hostage to its power, through the bad influence of the sinful flesh, the sinful world and the sinful people who inhabit this world.
Enter the various Gnostic groups, who pushed this division to its logical consequences and said that the flesh is bad and created by the devil or by some inferior creator-usurper, while the spirit is good and is created by the good Creator (this is the Knowledge), so the man has to escape the captivity of the flesh and the world, to avoid procreation and to hasten death in order to recover our original spiritual goodness and to reunite with the supreme Creator (this is the Wisdom, personified as a benevolent daughter of the Creator who helps man escape).
When we remember all the traditional Christian answers to 2), we recognize this pattern of thinking whenever we are adviced to avoid the “temptations of the flesh” and to understand “the world” vs. “the Kingdom of God” and our life vs. the afterlife as irreconciliable oppositions.

But if we don’t perceive anymore the Flesh and the World as ruled by the Sin and the Devil, we understand that everything that we are endowed with (by God) has the same potential to be used, abused, misused or wasted, that self-control is something that can be learned and that the wisdom (of living in harmony with knowledge) is a matter of experience, of trials and errors. Does the experience of a wise grandmother help a rebellious niece? Does he experience of the WWII help us now? Yes and no, because knowledge is easier to transmit than wisdom and each one needs his/her own new experiences to gain wisdom.

Seen from this perspective, ignorance is the lack of theoretical knowledge, blindness is the lack of practical wisdom. Would you repeat today the worst mistakes of your life? No, you say about them “if only I had known what I know today!!”, understanding by this either your past ignorance or your past blindness.

The unfolding of the revelation and our history reflect this. Moses received the Commandments at a given time, Jesus came at a given time, the Holy Spirit came at a given time. The parable of the 10 virgins is for people who have the knowledge and have to learn the wisdom, so they need warnings. But in the end it’s the result that counts, not the process: that’s why a monk who obeys the law all his life is equal with a man who returns to the church after 15 or 30 years or a man who repents on his deathbed. And the rebellion, the sins, the wasted time aren’t wasted at all in this economy where nothing is lost: they serve as experience and expand the individual and collective wisdom.

 

[vames]

We are told that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God and that he didn’t have concupiscence. *CCC 2514: St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods // 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 // CCC 377: The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
*
If Adam really possessed such qualities, 1) he wouldn’t have had any motivation to sin (he’d have known from the start that the serpent lies and that no creature can successfully rival and defeat God); 2) he couldn’t have had any means to sin (he’d have been devoid of any natural appetites, including the ability to experience pride and any intense human desire).

BUT, if on the other hand, we are told that in fact Adam didn’t possess such qualities YET, but that God just had planned to offer them to Adam as a prize for his obedience, then we have to admit that there’s zero difference between Adam before and after the Fall. Because logically we can’t have it both ways - to claim that Adam was immortal, had a perfect knowledge of God and lacked “concupiscence” and at the same time to claim that Adam was capable of a decisive, terrifying sin that constrained God to modify all his plan for humankind. The first assumption makes him non-human, superhuman AND unable to sin; the second assumption makes him a second Creator, the real Creator of man as we know it, of our world as we know it.

That’s why believing in OS can’t be a necessary condition for believing in the existence of sin; can’t we see that sins are committed every day? Rather, believing in OS is a way to EXCUSE God (Adam was created good, with perfect self-control, unmoved by “concupiscence”, immune to pain and death, and this is how we all had been destined to be) and to ACCUSE man (since Adam had everything, what he did was so terrifying and unexcusable, that God was constrained to resort to plan B and to deprive him of all these gifts - that’s why all humankind is so wicked and unworthy and nature is so dangerous and unfriendly towards man). Adam IS our scapegoat. This is his role.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think Adam plays the role of scapegoat, though. “Adam made me do it?” The doctrine of OS places the accountability to become righteous on humanity-on us all. The basic message of the church is for each of us, infivdually, to become right with God. Adam’s sin is its meant to tell us how we got “wrong” to begin with-but he doesn’t give us an excuse.

 

[fhansen]

Death causes sin because death comes first.

BTW, I think I understand the difference between OS and AS a bit better now. OS=all sinned in/with Adam. AS sin=all became sinners because of the corruption/death that Adam introduced into the world. Either way all become sinners. Does that fit?

 

[fhansen]

I am learning the meaning of God’s Economy of Salvation. You referred to it by mentioning the idea that God, knowing Adam would sin, planned from the beginning … You may be interested in CCC, Glossary, Economy of Salvation, (Divine Economy), page 876)

I read those paragraphs. Interesting material. Thank you.

Would you say that our knowing the plan of God, John 3: 16, is one of the reasons we believe in the goodness of God?

Well, yes, John 3:16 tells us about God’s love and goodness. The whole revelation of Jesus Christ has that main purpose from my understanding.

 

[vames]

BTW, I think I understand the difference between OS and AS a bit better now. OS=all sinned in/with Adam. AS sin=all became sinners because of the corruption/death that Adam introduced into the world. Either way all become sinners. Does that fit?

Yep

Re scapegoating: Whenever you say that your human nature is wounded and fallen because of Adam’s sin, that natural disasters occur because of Adam’s sin, that God is angry at us because of Adam’s sin (OS) and that devil&death hold the world captive because of Adam’s sin (AS), you make Adam into a scapegoat. Some prefer to accuse Eve first (“O woman, what have you done? … Why did you make your husband a partner in this grievous disaster, why prove to be the temptress of the person whose help mate you were intended to be, and why for a tiny morsel alienate him along with yourself from the favor of God?”). This way, your own fate is determined by A&E.

You sin or refrain from sin because, as a human and just like A&E, you have all the freedom and all the means to sin or to refrain from sin. But if you assume that the pre-Fall world was radically different from the post-Fall world, then you attribute to Adam all that you dislike in this world. Everything could have been so much better if Adam hadn’t sinned… this is scapegoating. Everything could have been so much better if each of us hadn’t sinned… this is assuming responsibility.

 

[grannymh]

We are told that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God

Oops!

The Catholic Church never taught that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God when he lived in the Garden.

The Catholic Church does teach that it is in heaven that people are in the presence of the Beatific Vision. There is a big, big difference between the temporary abode of the Garden and the eternity of heaven.

and that he didn’t have concupiscence

.

Concupiscence is distortion or great personal exaggeration of the value of the senses and material goods plus an inordinate pride of self- assertion. Please refer to CCC, 377. Concupiscence is monitored by reason which is CCC, 377 written in a positive mode. It is important that human reasoning is based on the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (CCC, 396) This “base” would be Adam’s conscience also known as an interior voice of a human being, within whose heart the inner law of God is inscribed. Human reason is not a chastity belt. Adam and ourselves have the freedom to ignore God’s commands and/or dull the true voice of conscience.

It is a mistake to consider freedom from concupiscence as something which ignores the beauty of our anatomy, the need for material food and shelter, and the appropriate appreciation of our talents. As CCC, 377 points out, the first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being. Adam had the inner harmony of original justice. This did not make mush out of his intellect and will. Adam could see, desire, and actively seek. Adam had, from the beginning, the capability to actively sin against the moral norms that govern the creature’s use of freedom. When one denies Adam’s freedom to sin, one misinterprets human nature in a terrible way. When one takes away the human opportunity to be master over his acts, one denies the human possibility of seeking and obtaining the Beatific Vision, face to face, in eternal heaven. (CCC, 1730-1731)

Concupiscence makes it easier for us to become submissive to temptations. While concupiscence subjugates man to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason, it does not destroy the spiritual faculties of the soul which are the rational intellect and free will. Man, of his own accord, can actively choose to share in God’s life on earth and in heaven (two different places). In this real sense, there is no fundamental difference between Adam and ourselves. What is extremely different is that Adam started out in a “friendship” relationship with God. Because Adam destroyed that “friendship” relationship, we start out in a contacted state which is without the original relationship that the original human had with Divinity. Baptism erases our contracted state with the presence of Sanctifying Grace in our soul. With Baptism, followed by our free choice to observe the commandments, we share in the life of the Trinity.