The Nature of Satan in the Bible

[WonderfulLife]

Can some people be born evil?

I am unsure where to look in the Catechisms to gain more insight into the nature of evil and the purpose of evil and I would greatly appreciate suggestions for reading up or any information anyone wishes to share.

Theoretically, I’m considering whether there is such a thing as true sociopathy (I think yes) and if that could be defined as evil (I think yes) and if those things are true, then why would God allow them to come into the world and damage others?

I understand that many people are wounded into cruelty from abuse/environment, but I’m talking about people who seemingly have no conscience and who weren’t abused, but simply seem to have been born that way.

 

[Pete_1]

I’ll have a go at helping you

from vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm#1732

ARTICLE 3
MAN’S FREEDOM
[1730](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1730.htm’) God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27 I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
[1731](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1731.htm’) Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
[1732](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1732.htm’) As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
[1733](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1733.htm’) The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
[1734](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1734.htm’) Freedom makes man *responsible *for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

So it appears one cannot be born evil, but one may be inclined to choose it more than another person.

 

[WonderfulLife]

Thank you for posting. Well, the assumption is rationality.

The argument seems to be the old Nature vs Nurture one that either people are born with certain personality characteristics or deficiencies versus whether their environment or parenting influenced those things.

Traditionally I’ve been more of a Nurture person. I could see, for example, where the underlying motivation of Dahmer was fear of abandonment or of Manson was rage at the social injustices that made his life difficult.

Obviously later those two and ultimately everyone else chooses but the tendency to choose more often this way than that, good over evil or vice versa is unquestionably related at least in part to their influences. Environment/mental illness clearly plays a factor and I recently read an article that indicates the stresses of poverty in and of itself can cause mental illness.

redorbit.com/news/health/887354/poverty_is_driver_in_mental_illness/index.html?source=r_health

This led me many ways including a belief that most ‘bad’ people were simply damaged people and thus capable of change and salvation, that we should look at those people with compassion, and simultaneously that there was possibly no such thing as “evil”.

However more recently I see more nature than nurture and I think now it’s possible that some people are simply born without the capacity to tell right from wrong - possibly some kind of genetic abnormality. In “East of Eden” Steinbeck had a character named Cathy whom he referred to as a monster. He said that some people were born without limbs, and because that was possible, it’s also possible that some people are born without conscience. They don’t feel guilt. Compassion seems foolish and weak to them. They know they are different from other people and in an attempt at dealing with the pain of that oddness, they choose to see themselves as more advanced human beings who aren’t hindered by weakness such as caring about the damage they do to others.

Wouldn’t that be, by definition, evil?

 

[Pete_1]

This is my opinion but i highly doubt that God would create a Human soul such that it was evil by it’s very nature and it was created in a way that made it impossible for it to be saved. Even the Devil could choose between good and evil, he chose evil.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

…and because that was possible, it’s also possible that some people are born without conscience. They don’t feel guilt. Compassion seems foolish and weak to them. They know they are different from other people and in an attempt at dealing with the pain of that oddness, they choose to see themselves as more advanced human beings who aren’t hindered by weakness such as caring about the damage they do to others.

Wouldn’t that be, by definition, evil?

I believe, not being a psychologist, that we commonly refer to these people as “sociopaths” or “psychotics”. In my limited understanding of these terms (which, I believe, are often interchangeable), some people are, as you say, “wounded into” such a state, but some are actually born that way – or, at least, born with a higher proclivity towads it.

In any case, I believe that being a sociopath only means one has no capacity for empathy, not that one is unable to distinguish right from wrong or to know the objective morality of one’s actions. Thus, sociopaths are fully capable of making coherent moral decisions, and thus capable of sinning (per the definition of sin).

The absence of empathy may make one more likely to sin, I suppose, but it doesn’t make a sociopath an inherently evil person.

Again, I’m no psychologist…

Peace,
Dante

 

[WonderfulLife]

I appreciate the responses. Pete, thx, you made a good point about choice and Dante did a good job of illuminating pretty much the same point.

I want to think about it some more. We all know the Church defines a mortal sin as one with intent, a conscious choice. I wonder how murky the waters are between venial and mortal sin when dealing with such a situation or rather, does sociopathy preclude intent in the eyes of the Church.

Any other (name removed by moderator)ut or opinions will still be appreciated and I’m still looking into various sources as well.