Philosophy: The Origin of Evil

[Nita]

I understand what you are saying. However, the issue I’m trying to tackle is why Adam and Eve’s initial lack of original sin did not keep them from sin in the first place. Contrasted with Mary and with her Beloved Son, both of whom were also free from the effects of original sin, what was different about Adam and Eve’s condition?

(I will not be including Jesus in any of the comparisons because He is obviously very different from all of us. He is God; in Him there is the fullness of two natures, not just one.)

There are only a couple of differences I can think of between Mary and Adam & Eve, both of which - to my way of thinking - would have made it more difficult for Mary than for our original parents. One of course is external (which you mention below) - the whole environment. Mary lived in a fallen world where sin and death prevailed. The other I’m guessing at (don’t know if there is an official teaching). I would say Mary’s flesh was “mortal” - subject to pain and death (physical “death” somehow present in it). Prior to their original sin, I don’t think Adam and Eve were subject to physical suffering/disease/death.

They all entered this world without the stain of original sin. What gives? Why were Adam and Eve more vulnerable?

I don’t think Adam and Eve were more vulnerable.
There would be the difference in there experiential knowledge from Mary. They did not see the disastrous effects of sin in the world around them or in others. Did this lack of knowledge make them more vulnerable?? I don’t know. Or less vulnerable?? Sin around us is often a temptation to us to sin.

Why did Mary and Christ remain always in the Father’s will and Adam and Eve did not?

That is the mystery of free will.
Eg. Why do you say “No” to a specific sin on Monday, and fail to do so on Tuesday?
We do believe that God gave Mary special graces, but whether these were more than those experienced by Adam & Eve prior to their sin, I don’t know. To my knowledge there is no Church teaching concerning that aspect.

Have to go now. There are a couple points in the remaining paragraphs that I’d like to comment on, but will have to do it later.

Nita

 

[Nita]

In that context then, it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would choose to have that knowledge of good and evil and self-awareness. In order to love the Master, one must know what it is like not to have the Master. Mary and Christ saw the effects of original sin all around them - the selfishness, fear, pride, envy, arrogance - effects that Adam and Eve did not know yet, hence they chose to know. Perhaps that is why Mary and Christ could be externally tempted but never internally.

I think “know” and “knowledge” in Genesis go beyond just having information in the intellect. After all, Adam and Eve knew (had the information) from God that to eat from that tree was wrong for them to do and that it would have serious consequences.

(By the way, one can love someone without undergoing the experience of not having them.)

Then was Father Pacwa’s statement wrong, or only half the story, when he said that Adam and Eve were only tempted externally before the fall? Nita, your reply seems to contradict his statement. If you’re saying that Adam and Eve were tempted internally (as only sinful thoughts give rise to action), from what did the internal temptation arise? If there was no original sin yet, there could not have been internal temptation, I don’t believe. Maybe that is the fallacy in my understanding…

Father Pacwa’s statement is not wrong.
I’m not sure, but I think some of the problem you’re experiencing may be a result of not correctly distinguishing between “temptation” and “sin”. Culpable sin, by its very definition, involves the Will.
Sin can be external (exterior actions) and/or internal (thoughts).
Temptation also can be external and/or internal.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you may be considering all internal thoughts and desires as “temptations” only. This is incorrect. Thoughts themselves can be sins.

Due to our fallen state, sinful thoughts can just pop into our heads without us willing them to be there. That is temptation. Now, when we become aware of them, we make a choice.

1. If we choose to continue pondering those sinful things, we sin.
2. If we choose to reject those thoughts and strive not to think them but rather to think of wholesome things, then we do not sin. As long as we “choose” to battle the thoughts - (and, as you probably know from experience, that can go on for a long time) - we do not sin
   It is the choice made by the will that determines whether those thoughts are sinful or not.
   That is why Adam and Eve’s thoughts were sins, not just temptations. They chose to continue listening; chose to give serpent’s words credibility; etc

Disorders (since original sin) are present not just in our soul (intellect darkened, will weakened) but also in our flesh (disordered physical desires). The sinful fleshly desires that arise without our consciously choosing to arouse them are temptations only, and no sin involved. But if we choose to continue/indulge them, then we sin.

Adam and Eve in their original condition had none of these disorders of body and soul. Everything was good and in proper order, that is why temptation could not originate from within them - from either their body or their soul; it had to come from something external to them.

These disorders in our human nature are not really what is meant when we say we are born in the “state of original sin”. What is meant is that the supernatural life of grace (sanctifying grace) is not present in our soul. This life of grace, present originally in Adam and Eve, was never a part of their human nature. It was an extra, so to speak, gift from God. They lost it for themselves and us by choosing to sin. When we are baptized, we say that the stain of original sin is removed since God then infuses His gift of sanctifying grace (supernatural life of God) into our souls.
But concupisence (the disorders of our human nature) remain after Baptism.

So, when we say Mary is born free of original sin, what is being said is that God infused her soul with the life of sanctifying grace at the very moment of her conception. This teaching is dogmatic.

The teaching concerning whether or not Mary experienced concupisence is not as certain. “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” classifies its degree of theological certainty as “sententia communis” (which is defined as common teaching/doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally).

Hope this helps.

Nita

 

[santodomingo]

Age old problem.

1. God created all things good.
2. So where did evil come from?

I once read a good answer to this dilema. This is how it goes;

Agnostic´s reasoning: God created everything that exists, because being God means He is the origin of everything. Evil exists, therefore He created evil, therefore God is evil.

Catholic reasoning: God created everything that exists. However, evil only exists as the ABSENCE OF GOOD. In the same way, physics teaches us that cold only exists as the absence of heat, darkness as the absence of light, and emptiness as the absence of matter. It is our PERCEPTION of evil that leads us to believe it is really something created by God.

Hope this is of some use.