The Fall

[dingodile]

I’m hoping someone can enlighten me about the Catholic interpretation of the Fall–or at least point me to some good resources.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that humanity, and perhaps all of nature, is fallen from some previously better state.

Let me start with nature more broadly. The food chain exists, and it is indeed brutal. Species prey on other species to survive, and in the process cause much suffering. I don’t know if the food chain as we know it is considered to be a consequence of the Fall, which would imply (I think) that before the Fall there was either no food chain or a completely different one.

Concerning humanity only, I’ve read many theories. One theory, favored by ex-Catholic atheist Daniel Quinn, is that prior to agriculture, human beings lived “in the wild” as hunter-gatherers, making a living in ways similar to other species. All that changed when they took up agriculture, which simultaneously increased their numbers (by generating a large increase in the food supply), worsened their health, and fundamentally altered their mode of living. Permanent centers of population, towns and cities, came into existence, and with them all the social problems that have remained with us to this day. On this view, agriculture was the Fall. This vaguely corresponds to the curse upon Adam and Eve in Gen 3:17-18. Of course, it’s not a particular Christian view. Quinn himself, in The Story of B, represents it as an “Antichrist” theory.

Does the Catholic understanding of the Fall depend upon a fairly literal reading of the Garden of Eden story, or are there other ways of doing it?

 

[Joe_5859]

If you’re looking for the Catholic view of the Fall and Original Sin, look no further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). In particular, look at CCC 385-421.

 

[dingodile]

If you’re looking for the Catholic view of the Fall and Original Sin, look no further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). In particular, look at CCC 385-421.

Thanks. On the one hand, I read “390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265”

Then I read, ‘413 "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world’ (Wis 1:13; 2:24)."

So, should I understand the CCC to be saying that prior to the Fall no living thing was subject to death? If so, then it would indeed follow that the food chain, as we now know it, could not have existed. Or is that too literal a reading?

Does the “history of man” allow for a “prehistory of man” as well? It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church doesn’t reject the possibility that humankind evolved from some earlier hominins. Perhaps the history of man begins with the first beings to have rational souls. If so, then I’m still in the dark about the pre-Fallen state and whether there was death in the world.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks. On the one hand, I read “390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265”

Then I read, ‘413 "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world’ (Wis 1:13; 2:24)."

So, should I understand the CCC to be saying that prior to the Fall no living thing was subject to death? If so, then it would indeed follow that the food chain, as we now know it, could not have existed. Or is that too literal a reading?

Does the “history of man” allow for a “prehistory of man” as well? It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church doesn’t reject the possibility that humankind evolved from some earlier hominins. Perhaps the history of man begins with the first beings to have rational souls. If so, then I’m still in the dark about the pre-Fallen state and whether there was death in the world.

There can be various views …

Well one response can be:

Catechism:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

With the fall of Adam --death entered human history. (Adam was the first Man)

Jimmy Akin addressed this question just last week: Listen here catholic.com/radio/shows/qa-open-forum-6018

 

[babylonsfalling]

I’m hoping someone can enlighten me about the Catholic interpretation of the Fall–or at least point me to some good resources.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that humanity, and perhaps all of nature, is fallen from some previously better state.***<—Then you have a problem with Christianity as it has always existed. ***

Let me start with nature more broadly. The food chain exists, and it is indeed brutal. Species prey on other species to survive, and in the process cause much suffering. I don’t know if the food chain as we know it is considered to be a consequence of the Fall, which would imply (I think) that before the Fall there was either no food chain or a completely different one.<—The current food chain is not the same as the pre-Fall foodchain.

Concerning humanity only, I’ve read many theories. One theory, favored by ex-Catholic atheist Daniel Quinn, is that prior to agriculture, human beings lived “in the wild” as hunter-gatherers, making a living in ways similar to other species. All that changed when they took up agriculture, which simultaneously increased their numbers (by generating a large increase in the food supply), worsened their health, and fundamentally altered their mode of living. Permanent centers of population, towns and cities, came into existence, and with them all the social problems that have remained with us to this day. On this view, agriculture was the Fall. This vaguely corresponds to the curse upon Adam and Eve in Gen 3:17-18. Of course, it’s not a particular Christian view. Quinn himself, in The Story of B, represents it as an “Antichrist” theory.***<—atheists typically reach for anything that will discredit the Bible. They spend years trying not to believe in it and then almost all of them end up returning to Church anyway, and usually make the most admirable Christians in the congregation. ***

Does the Catholic understanding of the Fall depend upon a fairly literal reading of the Garden of Eden story,<—No, it does not. or are there other ways of doing it?

More here… scborromeo.org/ccc/para/390.htm

 

[dingodile]

Then you have a problem with Christianity as it has always existed.

Yes, that’s probably true. My reason for asking here was to see if there is a distinctively Catholic understanding of the Fall.

The current food chain is not the same as the pre-Fall foodchain.

Well, okay. Is there some Catholic teaching about the pre-Fall food chain?

@Bookcat – In saying that “death makes its entrance into human history”, I take it that the CCC is not necessarily saying that there was no death in the rest of nature prior to the Fall.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not teach that Adam and Eve must have been specially created. Is this correct? If they were the first humans, it’s possible that they were the offspring of pre-humans, is it not? Or are we required to believe that they were specially created beings, without biological parents, immortal by design?

You see, before I can even contemplate the question of whether the Fall is believable, I have to try to understand just what it is that one is supposed to believe. It all seems a bit vague.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, that’s probably true. My reason for asking here was to see if there is a distinctively Catholic understanding of the Fall.

Well, okay. Is there some Catholic teaching about the pre-Fall food chain?

@Bookcat – In saying that “death makes its entrance into human history”, I take it that the CCC is not necessarily saying that there was no death in the rest of nature prior to the Fall.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not teach that Adam and Eve must have been specially created. Is this correct? If they were the first humans, it’s possible that they were the offspring of pre-humans, is it not? Or are we required to believe that they were specially created beings, without biological parents, immortal by design?

You see, before I can even contemplate the question of whether the Fall is believable, I have to try to understand just what it is that one is supposed to believe. It all seems a bit vague.

The only Catholic doctrine that I know which explains the pre-Fall material/physical world along with the ancient beings which inhabited it is the opening lines of the Nicene Creed. “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen and unseen.”

Regarding the two, first, real human beings lovingly known as Adam and Eve, the Catholic doctrine is that they existed and that Adam committed the actual Original Sin. How their material anatomy came about is not spelled out. The language in *Genesis *demonstrates that the human anatomy came from the material world and that man’s spiritual soul came directly from God.

A lot of the posters have given you paragraph numbers from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Personally, I consider these paragraphs as pieces of our human nature puzzle. It takes work and a keen eye to put it all together. One hint. I find that starting with CCC paragraph 355 and following is like getting the frame of the puzzle in place.

When one considers the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Eucharist, pre-Fall vagueness is put on the back burner.

 

[fhansen]

I’m hoping someone can enlighten me about the Catholic interpretation of the Fall–or at least point me to some good resources.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that humanity, and perhaps all of nature, is fallen from some previously better state.

Let me start with nature more broadly. The food chain exists, and it is indeed brutal. Species prey on other species to survive, and in the process cause much suffering. I don’t know if the food chain as we know it is considered to be a consequence of the Fall, which would imply (I think) that before the Fall there was either no food chain or a completely different one.

Concerning humanity only, I’ve read many theories. One theory, favored by ex-Catholic atheist Daniel Quinn, is that prior to agriculture, human beings lived “in the wild” as hunter-gatherers, making a living in ways similar to other species. All that changed when they took up agriculture, which simultaneously increased their numbers (by generating a large increase in the food supply), worsened their health, and fundamentally altered their mode of living. Permanent centers of population, towns and cities, came into existence, and with them all the social problems that have remained with us to this day. On this view, agriculture was the Fall. This vaguely corresponds to the curse upon Adam and Eve in Gen 3:17-18. Of course, it’s not a particular Christian view. Quinn himself, in The Story of B, represents it as an “Antichrist” theory.

Does the Catholic understanding of the Fall depend upon a fairly literal reading of the Garden of Eden story, or are there other ways of doing it?

The Catholic teaching on the Fall resonates with me for one main reason: the sheer unreasonableness of evil. The sheer unreasonableness of one person placing their egos-their pride-driven self-righteousness ahead of the truth, even if it means harming another in some way. The odd preference we can have as humans to be right-the rush we can get from feeling we have the moral upper hand-it doesn’t even make sense. And yet we take this situation for granted, just like we take human shame, another strange aspect related to the Fall, for granted.

And this causes all kinds of moral evil (sin) in the world. This is why the eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does make sense-because at that time man went from having his own morality predetermined for him to becoming the determiner of his morality for himself. IOW he became God for all practical purposes.And the choice for a believer is really all about re-enthroning God-as God.

 

[dingodile]

The Catholic teaching on the Fall resonates with me for one main reason: the sheer unreasonableness of evil. The sheer unreasonableness of one person placing their egos-their pride-driven self-righteousness ahead of the truth, even if it means harming another in some way. The odd preference we can have as humans to be right-the rush we can get from feeling we have the moral upper hand-it doesn’t even make sense. And yet we take this situation for granted, just like we take human shame, another strange aspect related to the Fall, for granted.

Well stated. I have no difficulty with the notion that we human beings are damaged goods, except insofar as it implies a time when we were not that way. I don’t know if the Catholic teaching on the Fall entails that the pre-Fallen state was enjoyed only by the two human beings, Adam and Eve, during part of their lifetimes, or whether it allows for humanity to have existed for some time in a pre-Fallen state. It seems to depend on the literalness of one’s reading of Genesis.

It becomes even more difficult for me to consider that somehow nature itself, not just the human race, is damaged goods, as a result of human disobedience. I mean, I can see how a case might be made for that now, in light of human defilement of the environment in various ways, but it’s hard for me to see nature in the misty past as “broken” due to human rebellion.

But I don’t mean to turn this into a debate. I really was just wondering how Catholics see all this.

 

[grannymh]

Well stated. I have no difficulty with the notion that we human beings are damaged goods, except insofar as it implies a time when we were not that way. I don’t know if the Catholic teaching on the Fall entails that the pre-Fallen state was enjoyed only by the two human beings, Adam and Eve, during part of their lifetimes, or whether it allows for humanity to have existed for some time in a pre-Fallen state. It seems to depend on the literalness of one’s reading of Genesis.

It becomes even more difficult for me to consider that somehow nature itself, not just the human race, is damaged goods, as a result of human disobedience. I mean, I can see how a case might be made for that now, in light of human defilement of the environment in various ways, but it’s hard for me to see nature in the misty past as “broken” due to human rebellion.

But I don’t mean to turn this into a debate. I really was just wondering how Catholics see all this.

According to Catholicism and not necessarily other Christian religions, we are not damaged goods per se. Yes, our human nature is flawed or wounded, but, and this is important, we have the same basic human nature God created in Adam.

 

[fhansen]

Well stated. I have no difficulty with the notion that we human beings are damaged goods, except insofar as it implies a time when we were not that way. I don’t know if the Catholic teaching on the Fall entails that the pre-Fallen state was enjoyed only by the two human beings, Adam and Eve, during part of their lifetimes, or whether it allows for humanity to have existed for some time in a pre-Fallen state. It seems to depend on the literalness of one’s reading of Genesis.

It becomes even more difficult for me to consider that somehow nature itself, not just the human race, is damaged goods, as a result of human disobedience. I mean, I can see how a case might be made for that now, in light of human defilement of the environment in various ways, but it’s hard for me to see nature in the misty past as “broken” due to human rebellion.

But I don’t mean to turn this into a debate. I really was just wondering how Catholics see all this.

But “damaged” still implies a state of not damaged-a state of how things “should be” vs how they are. And damaged, in Catholic thought as granny mentioned, is not totally broken so much as lowered to a “natural” state, without Gods influence or grace, without God, so to speak, in mans life. This is considered to be a state of injustice for man.

 

[grannymh]

But “damaged” still implies a state of not damaged-a state of how things “should be” vs how they are.

Being feminine, I find the phrase “damaged goods” offensive.

 

[grannymh]

But “damaged” still implies a state of not damaged-a state of how things “should be” vs how they are. And damaged, in Catholic thought as granny mentioned, is not totally broken so much as lowered to a “natural” state, without Gods influence or grace, without God, so to speak, in mans life. This is considered to be a state of injustice for man.

Being feminine, I find the phrase “damaged goods” generally offensive.

 

[Bookcat]

@Bookcat – In saying that “death makes its entrance into human history”, I take it that the CCC is not necessarily saying that there was no death in the rest of nature prior to the Fall.

Such would I think the correct reading. (And what I hold)

As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not teach that Adam and Eve must have been specially created. Is this correct? If they were the first humans, it’s possible that they were the offspring of pre-humans, is it not? Or are we required to believe that they were specially created beings, without biological parents, immortal by design?

Such would be Speculations…of course. But yes in one sense for sure Adam and Eve were specially created (certainly not a product of chance etc…)…but also yes their bodies could have been prepared via means other than an “instant creation” out of nothing (or out dust as the symbol goes)

You see, before I can even contemplate the question of whether the Fall is believable, I have to try to understand just what it is that one is supposed to believe. It all seems a bit vague.

This can perhaps be of some help to ya: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[Bookcat]

CCC notes in 400: “Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.”

I would not say that this means that before the fall…there was not decay…no death in creation.

Note the terms subject and bondage.

It would seem to me …that yes…death entered the world --for Man-- at the sin of Adam.

But such was part of creation up to that point for the rest of creation (such was not what is meant by “the fall”).

Now after the Fall creation is “subject to its bondage of decay”…

IF Adam had not sinned (one could speculate)…then that creation would not have been “subject” to its “bondage” to decay but things would have been more perfected perhaps … now what would have been??? or what could have been? we do not know…but what we do know is that since the sin…things are different even in the rest of creation…

As it is now…creation IS effected by the sin of Adam…it is now held in bondage …until Resurrection and the new heavens and new earth.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Q.HTM

 

[dingodile]

Being feminine, I find the phrase “damaged goods” generally offensive.

I apologize for the offense; it was unintended. I’m unaware of any gender aspect to the expression, but I’ll take your word for it. It won’t be my first gaffe!

“Flawed or wounded” captures the meaning, then.

@Bookcat – The notion that creation–not just humanity–is in “bondage to decay” as a result of human sin is, at the risk of understatement, mind-boggling.

@fhansen – Thanks for the link to the essay on Adam & Eve and evolution. To quote: “Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.”

The implication of this, as I understand it, is that there may have been a long line of hominins, dating far back into prehistory, just as contemporary paleoanthropology suggests, but these were soulless beings, until at some point God chose to endow precisely two of them with souls.

Well, if I remember my Aquinas, the ancestors of Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been quite soulless. They would have had animal souls, rather than rational souls. But does the doctrine of the Fall imply that Adam and Eve, unlike their ancestors, would have been immortal if they had not sinned?

Thanks to all for offering answers to my questions.

 

[Bookcat]

I
@Bookcat – The notion that creation–not just humanity–is in “bondage to decay” as a result of human sin is, at the risk of understatement, mind-boggling.

Also it is simply drawing from what Paul wrote in his letter. One must understand that Adam and Eve were not just a part of creation… they were given a very particular “office” if you will.

And on the other sides of things:

As Paul in Scripture also notes…creation is waiting for the revelation of the Sons of God…

creation awaits the Resurrection and the new heavens and new earth…

 

[Bookcat]

CCC notes in 400: “Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.”

I would **not **say that this means that before the fall…there was not decay…no death in creation.

Note the terms subject and bondage.

It would seem to me …that yes…death entered the world --for Man-- at the sin of Adam.

But such was part of creation up to that point for the rest of creation (such was not what is meant by “the fall”).

Now after the Fall creation is “subject to its bondage of decay”…

IF Adam had not sinned (one could speculate)…then that creation would not have been “subject” to its “bondage” to decay but things would have been more perfected perhaps … now what would have been??? or what could have been? we do not know…but what we do know is that since the sin…things are different even in the rest of creation…

As it is now…creation IS effected by the sin of Adam…it is now held in bondage …until Resurrection and the new heavens and new earth.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Q.HTM

Just to make sure I was clear

 

[fhansen]

I apologize for the offense; it was unintended. I’m unaware of any gender aspect to the expression, but I’ll take your word for it. It won’t be my first gaffe!

“Flawed or wounded” captures the meaning, then.

@Bookcat – The notion that creation–not just humanity–is in “bondage to decay” as a result of human sin is, at the risk of understatement, mind-boggling.

@fhansen – Thanks for the link to the essay on Adam & Eve and evolution. To quote: “Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.”

The implication of this, as I understand it, is that there may have been a long line of hominins, dating far back into prehistory, just as contemporary paleoanthropology suggests, but these were soulless beings, until at some point God chose to endow precisely two of them with souls.

Well, if I remember my Aquinas, the ancestors of Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been quite soulless. They would have had animal souls, rather than rational souls. But does the doctrine of the Fall imply that Adam and Eve, unlike their ancestors, would have been immortal if they had not sinned?

Thanks to all for offering answers to my questions.

I think Bookcat gave you the link.
Anyway, I believe the Church teaches that man was destined for immortality had he not sinned. Best source is the Catechism on the Fall as others have pointed out,

 

[grannymh]

I apologize for the offense; it was unintended. I’m unaware of any gender aspect to the expression, but I’ll take your word for it. It won’t be my first gaffe!

“Flawed or wounded” captures the meaning, then.

Thank you for your kind response. It wasn’t taken personally.
Slang goes in and out of fashion. And hopefully, that slang phrase will stay out of fashion. Yes, flawed or wounded captures the loss of harmony within the person.