Psychology of Original Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter webmasterpdx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

webmasterpdx

Guest
I’ve studied Jungian psychology, comparative mythology, archaeology and history as part of my spiritual journey over the last 25 years and only returned to Catholicism a year ago. I’m a scientist by training. In that time, I’ve come to a conclusion as to how it all works and I wanted to get some feedback on this idea.

My idea is that Original Sin is the ability of man to throw his guilt/conscience into his unconscious mind. Originally, man was in communion with God and the Holy Spirit kept his conscience in front of his conscious mind. He could sin, but he wouldn’t typically want to, being aware of the consequences at all times. However, once he did, the Holy Spirit was no longer indwelling in him and he could throw his conscience into his unconscious. Thus, man’s sin nature.

Now, consider that when we die, if our conscience and conscious mind get joined together again, and we must bear the guilt for the sin we committed while alive, the guilt would be a big part of Hell. St Faustina states this in her vision of hell. It would mean that hell is something that we create for ourselves. I would even say that we cannot experience the true pain of guilt in this life as when the guilt rises to a certain level, our minds automatically throw it into our unconscious. But when we die, we can feel the true pain of guilt. Only by being in communion with God, can this guilt be thrown into our joined (God and man) unconscious. Thus we are freed from hell.

Now, consider that we are told that Mary was in communion with God where the Holy Spirit kept her conscience in front of her conscious mind to keep her from sin. Furthermore, that Jesus himself possibly was genetically incapable of putting his conscience into his unconscious, thereby keeping him from sin. Note that he could sin, but he wouldn’t want to, like Adam. For him, it would be the opposite to us. When he dies, he CAN throw his conscience into his unconscious. Also consider that it’s possible that he had all of our guilt thrown upon his shoulders in the garden of Gethsemane, causing him to ask the Father to remove the cup from him and causing him to sweat blood. He effectively went to hell while still alive, for our sins, meaning that a big part of his suffering was psychological as well as physical. Thus when we die, if we are in communion with him, made possible by the hypostatic union of God and man, our guilt can be thrown into God’s unconscious…but only if we are in communion with him. Those in hell are separate from him and cannot do this, and must suffer the pain of their guilt.

Note that nothing I’m saying here is contradicting the Catholic catechism. It’s just a possible explanation for how it all works, rather than the usual cop out answer “it’s a mystery”, that I dislike so much…except for maybe what Jesus experienced…that’s all just a suggestion. There is also some scriptural support for this idea.

It just seems to make sense to me. I’ve searched everywhere online but I cannot find another reference to this idea…

Thus I decided to post it here, as I’d love to receive feedback from those more expert on Catholic Apologetics than I.
 
Last edited:
I had to severely edit my post as it only allowed 3200 characters. I mentioned scriptural support and a few other things I could not expand on before, so I’ll do it now 🙂

First, in Genesis, it says that upon man’s fall, God says that now, we are like them as we can know good AND evil (not good FROM evil…an important distinction), and the “know” word is the Greek gnosis, meaning experiential knowledge, so we can experience evil and live with ourselves, by throwing our guilt into our unconscious, by “out of sight, out of mind” or through rationalization (we are good at that).

The true pain of guilt is much more sensitive than we can experience in this life. If a man is angry with his brother, he’s committed murder in his heart (John 3:15).

There is an apocryphal book called the “Apocalypse of Peter” that describes hells for different sins, and one part of this jumped out at me. The description of hell for abortion. It says that the woman is placed in this lake of excrement and blood up to her neck with the child on the bank. Fire shoots from the child into her eyes. This causes her breasts to give forth sour milk which attracts tiny beasts that devour her forever. This really stood out to me, as first, the fire meaning that she is forced to see the child as a child, not as an inconvenience/toenail/haircut. Then, being up to her neck meaning she is feeling dirty about herself. Her breasts giving sour milk meaning her motherhood nature being corrupted, and the tiny beasts devouring her forever, meaning that the guilt from the whole thing causing her pain forever. This is fully in line with what I’m suggesting, as in being aware of the full consequences of our sins and the associated guilt.

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
 
The only thing is that most of us are fully aware of our guilt. It is not in the unconscious at all, in fact it is so much in our conscious mind that it plagues many of us and the Churches actually reinforce that sens of guilt.

But that point at which guilt enters the picture is certainly correlated with original sin. So i think you have it backwards. Our hominid ancestors had no guilt. Thier actions were in their self interest to survive, like instinct. At some point someone said, “I feel bad about killing that other guy for his food.” It came with the ability to reflect and feel a sense of conscience - guilt.
 
Last edited:
We may be aware of it if we choose to think about it, but we prefer not to think about it and it is this ability to which I’m referring. The ability to not think about it. When forced to think about it (cannot put our conscience into the unconscious), then we feel the pain of guilt.
Early man felt no guilt because he didn’t sin. There is no guilt if you don’t sin. I’m saying that if you cannot “not think about it”, you don’t sin. You can, but you choose not to.
 
webmasterpdx said:
My idea is that Original Sin is the ability of man to throw his guilt/conscience into his unconscious mind. Originally, man was in communion with God and the Holy Spirit kept his conscience in front of his conscious mind. He could sin, but he wouldn’t typically want to, being aware of the consequences at all times. However, once he did, the Holy Spirit was no longer indwelling in him and he could throw his conscience into his unconscious. Thus, man’s sin nature.
Click to expand...
What you say sounds interesting to me. Two aspects of our current condition are, first -as you suggest-, that we tend to throw our guilt into our unconscious mind; and, second, the existence of a positive law, which seems to imply that most of the people need to be morally structured from outside (heteronomy).

I can see, however, an important gap in your explanation: If, as you say, the Holy Spirit kept the first man’s conscience in front of his conscious mind, then throwing his guilt into his unconscious mind could not be the original sin nor its cause, but -at any rate-, just one of the consequences of the original sin (whatever it was). Can you see that?
 
Last edited:
webmasterpdx said:
My idea is that Original Sin is the ability of man to throw his guilt/conscience into his unconscious mind.
Click to expand...
I can relate to much of what you said, maybe search for a greatest purpose for creation first.

Did God have a complete plan for the creation of everything, did he think ahead? Were Christ’s life, death and resurrection planned before the creation of the universe began?
To search for a deeper meaning, was Christ freely given the choice to accept his sacrifice before the creation of the universe began?
What purpose can be so great, that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance that his son would die?

Here is a childlike and yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Before creation began, imagine God looking out into the vast empty void of space, and thinking, I have the power to create anything I want, what is the greatest good thing I can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be a builder. He could create a whole variety of life with almost no intelligence like plants; and be a gardener. God could create life with more intelligence like the animal kingdom; and he is a farmer. God could create children in his own image, children who could love in the same perfect way that God loves and God would be a Father.

God could make a covenant with himself, and say that he will love each and every one of his children as he loves himself. God could sow the commandments of love in our hearts, (conscience). God could give us the greatest commandment to love God in exactly the same way that God loves us.
Because God loves everyone as he loves himself, he has given us the second greatest commandment to love all of my neighbours as I love myself.

Can there be any greater purpose to create the universe and life?
 
JuanFlorencio, you are right. This is not original sin that I am describing, but the consequence. We don’t know what the actual sin was that Adam committed (I personally don’t believe it was eating a fruit)…probably just choosing to not live by the word of God. I really don’t think that part is important. What is important is how the consequence results in us “knowing evil/sin” and feeling our self imposed punishment when we die and our salvation from this by Jesus.
 
Another thing to think about, and something taught by St. John Paul II’s Theology of the body, that it was the body that informed the intellect of it’s fallen state.

Involuntary movements of the body caused them shame and the need to cover themselves.
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom, I believe that God created us to love us and for us to love him…simple as that. There might also be a procreation element to it too (look how often we are referred to as children of God in the Bible). Maybe God wished to live to his fullest within his creation and joined with man, so we are the procreation between God and the universe…or something like that 🙂
We are told in the new testament that Christs actions were predestined from the beginning and was hidden from all the angels. Christ may have said to the father…it’s not what I want, but thy will be done…so he did freely choose to follow his father’s will.
In doing so, he freed us to share in God’s ability to throw his guilt into his unconscious. So, we, as children of God, would be immortal in the universe, and possess no pain of guilt, but we would freely love God and choose to do his will.
 
Benadam, That is a really interesting point about the shame and why they hid from God. Shame has always been a part of guilt. It’s one of the psychological symptoms of guilt. However, it was very specific to their nakedness in Genesis. I’ll have to think on that one. Good call!
 
Benadam…You questioned as to whether god could have guilt? Well it does say in Genesis that God said (after Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge) that “they are now like us in that they can know good AND evil”. Also, did not Jesus take on his shoulders the pain of our guilt? …and yes, he could remove it from himself (maybe through the unconscious). I might even go as far as to say that God’s unconscious might be called “oblivion”. If a person is communing with God after death, I think he’d have access to God’s unconscious and be able to throw his guilt into the shared unconscious. This is part of what I’m suggesting…that man and God share the one body of the church with Christ as the head, and thus have access to God’s mind and the way God’s mind works.
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom, also implied in what you said is the question why did God choose to do things this way? I’d like to suggest that he tried every other way to show us that this was the only way. When someone asks (usually it’s Atheists who ask this) “If God is real, why doesn’t he just do this”. Like allowing us to live with and like him. Well he did, with the angels, and they failed. He also did it with Adam and Eve and they failed. Why didn’t he create a very wise man. He did with Solomon, and he failed. Why didn’t he create a very strong man. He did, with Samson, and he failed…etc, etc… Every other way failed. This was the only way. It says in Ephesians (I think) that this was his plan all along, and it was hidden from all until Jesus died on the cross.
 
webmasterpdx said:
I might even go as far as to say that God’s unconscious might be called “oblivion”. If a person is communing with God after death, I think he’d have access to God’s unconscious and be able to throw his guilt into the shared unconscious. This is part of what I’m suggesting…that man and God share the one body of the church with Christ as the head, and thus have access to God’s mind and the way God’s mind works.
Click to expand...
You do not pretend to be taken seriously on this, do you?
 
JuanFlorencio, nothing I’ve said contradicts the catechism, so yeah, I am serious. It is a mechanism that works. We are responsible for our own suffering, and through God’s grace, God joined with man in Jesus. The church calls it “the hypostatic union of God and man”. This includes spirit and mind I would imagine. I’m suggesting that if we die without being unified or “in communion” with God, then we have to bear the pain of our guilt among other things, which constitutes hell. However, if being in union with God when we die, we can throw our guilt into “oblivion”, and thus no longer suffer for our sins in life.
 
I would add that it is important to distinguish b/w mortal and venial sin.

The mortal sin requires deliberation, so the subconscious has little to do here. The venial sins are the grey area sins and are the result of the subconscious.

Also, consider how societal norms contribute to the subconscious. We are taught in Catechism of the sin of working on Sunday, yet society tells us that it is perfectly OK to work on Sunday.

For those of us Americans who want to follow the 3rd Commandment, we are afflicted b/c of this society; we are trapped in this nation b/c of its lack of truth. The devil is still winning battles.

Folks won’t fight the corporations for fear of losing their jobs. Yet scripture says…Do not worry about what you will wear and what you will eat. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

So, who is going to trust in God and his commandments, so that their worldly anxiety will leave them and so that clothes and food will be GIVEN to them?

Was Adam not fearful when the wind started blowing in the Garden? Yes, and that was after he violated the Commandment to not eat the fruit.
 
Good thoughts here.

The idea of “throwing” of conscience is new to me.

I learned that the effects of Original Sin on us is our limited dominion over our faculties.

Our will and our intellect, properly, should be in control of our self, our passions, emotions, appetites.

Clearly they are not.

Some times the will and intellect (either together or separately) begin serving the passions, the emotions, the appetites.

There is, as some Catholic theologians say, “imperfect dominion” over these faculties.

Self-reflectively it’s hard to argue that there are times when our appetites do “play boss”, and the will cooperates or the intellect cooperates (the intellect might provide reasons or arguments to the will…“it’s no longer a sin, it’s only a small sin, we can go to confession…you deserve this…”.

And so goes the life long stuggle to “know the truth” (the job of the intellect) and “to do the good” (the job of the will.

But I think you’ve mentioned several good things here that I will ponder over.
 
webmasterpdx said:
JuanFlorencio, nothing I’ve said contradicts the catechism, so yeah, I am serious. It is a mechanism that works. We are responsible for our own suffering, and through God’s grace, God joined with man in Jesus. The church calls it “the hypostatic union of God and man”. This includes spirit and mind I would imagine. I’m suggesting that if we die without being unified or “in communion” with God, then we have to bear the pain of our guilt among other things, which constitutes hell. However, if being in union with God when we die, we can throw our guilt into “oblivion”, and thus no longer suffer for our sins in life.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t looking for contradictions with the catechism. However, honestly this part of your post sounds rather excentric to me:
webmasterpdx said:
This is part of what I’m suggesting…that man and God share the one body of the church with Christ as the head, and thus have access to God’s mind and the way God’s mind works.
Click to expand...
How would you pretend to have access to “the way God’s mind works”? (God’s mind! Do you want to develop a psychology of God?).

Being in love with my lover, I would not be interested on how her mind works, but on her good and her love towards me. My relationship with her would never be an occasion to apply my knowledge on jungian psychology upon her. Frankly, that would be… weird…

And if I am blessed with heaven, I expect all my concepts, including jungian doctrines, will become completely useless; and the way I know now -through reason-, will be replaced with something that will not remind me of scientific experiences. Science will be left behind as something which will be unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Webmasterpdx, your thoughts are good I think. I do believe some refinement is necessary in order to proceed.
Much of our conscious life, because of imperfect love, becomes unconscious. This unconscious part of ourselves continues to act out and shape who we are. As I’m sure you know.
God, even when He took on flesh, did not experience this flaw. This flaw of fallen nature. There was no darkness in Jesus. Therefore no unconscious to throw conscious experience back to. In fact that is part of what made Him able to know Himself fully. He didn’t become unconscious of any stage of His human life as it developed like we do.
That is our fallen nature, to forget what we are. Jesus didn’t share this with us nor did Adam before the fall. To not know what we are made of, as Jesus said of His Apostles.
As far as feeling the guilt of all human life, that is a mystery attached to the first Adam. We are all in the first Adam, along with our sin. Imagine the guilt Adam experiened knowing that all human sin would be because of himself? Jesus may have experiened this guilt for us, and for Adam especially. But throwing it into an uncoscious part of Himself couldn’t happen. There was no darkness in Him. The experience ended but did not become a part of His unconscios because there was no darkness in Him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top