Why is Eve blamed for the first sin/disobedience of God and not Adam?

[grannymh]

Like others have mentioned,I don’t think Adam and Eve story refers to two literal people.
Maybe it is symbolic for man kind and woman kind at the beginning of time?

I don’t think the Catholic Church blames only Eve but some Christian individuals have used the story of Adam + Eve to suggest that females are more weak minded,easier deceived or temptresses due to Eve being the one “fooled” by satan and not Adam.

In the real Catholic Church, Adam, a real founder of the human species, is literally present on planet earth. Because Adam is the original human–Eve is the second real human–it should be common sense that the literal Original Sin was freely committed by the Original human.

When it comes to the real Original Sin, the Catholic Church is not in the business of blaming this person or that person as if Catholics had a choice. A “blaming” excuse choice would be rather silly considering that the Original Sin was committed against the commandment of the Divine Creator God. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Sometimes, I think that those few Catholics who deny the real existence of Adam in human history have somehow put aside temporarily the reality of God Who created the unique human creature. (Genesis 1: 27) The reality of God creating the first human with a spiritual soul has to be considered a permanent truth.

Please refer to paragraphs 355-366 of the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *
Links.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Della]

But why is there a suggestion that only “womens nature” (Eve) was deceived /tempted by satan and therefor is “weaker minded” because if we look around there are as many men who are just as easily tempted or deceived as there are women.

I’d have to know who asserts this before attempting to answer. The Church doesn’t teach it. If others say this, it’s up to them to defend their position, not the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Scholars who weren’t there.

Scripture Scholars including those of the Catholic Church.

Hope this helps

Jim

 

[OneSheep]

“‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23).

The retaining of sins is part of confession. Priests may retain sins for various reasons in confession, one of which is the person refuses to be repentant of his mortal sin(s). This is not a license for the priest or anyone else to not forgive sins committed against them personally. It’s an authority given to them as priests which is restricted to confession.

Priests can refuse to forgive a sin on God’s behalf? They can say or believe that God does not forgive someone?

“Retention” does not just have to do with forgiveness, right? It also has to do with designation of responsibility.

I, for example, retain the sins of no one, and surely there are priests who do the same. So, does God choose which priests on which to base His retention? If so, why would He choose the priest who forgives everyone, which is His call to us (and a gift of the Spirit), rather than the priest who retains?

This is new information to me, and I am still fascinated.

 

[Della]

Priests can refuse to forgive a sin on God’s behalf? They can say or believe that God does not forgive someone?

Yes–but only in confession. The priest has the responsibility to assess penitents’ confessions–to decide if he will grant absolution. The penitent must have sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed (mortal sins), and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. If he doesn’t, the priest is within his rights to withhold absolution. Priests usually try to elicit one of these requirements from the penitent in confession because they want to be able to absolve rather than withhold absolution, if possible. They deal with people all the times who are in every circumstance imaginable. Theirs is a heavy responsibility which the vast majority take very seriously.

“Retention” does not just have to do with forgiveness, right? It also has to do with designation of responsibility.

Yes, the priest’s responsibility is to assess if the person is willing to be reconciled to God and the Church in confession.

 

[grannymh]

Scripture Scholars including those of the Catholic Church.

Hope this helps

Jim

Scripture Scholars including Catholic ones are entitled to free speech which means they are free to publish their personal research, opinions, and speculations about anything in Sacred Scripture.

When it comes to Catholic doctrines which flow from the reality of the first three chapters of Genesis, a proper protocol is precisely followed.

In the Catholic Church, major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils are responsible for defining Catholic doctrines which flow from the “Creation story along with Adam and Eve.” Not only are Scripture Scholars consulted; but also the writings of Apostles, Early Church Fathers, theologians, philosophers, saints, liturgical practices, and at times, anonymous authors. (Index of Citations, page 689 & following, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

Please note that not every word of these prominent contributors automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. It is through the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John) that we now have infallible truths based on the historical events found in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[meltzerboy]

Doesn’t this then make out like us women are “temptresses” or having a weaker nature etc and sort of blame women?

In Judaism, it is thought that men have stricter rules of behavior to which they must adhere because they are more likely to stray according to their nature than women.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Scripture Scholars including Catholic ones are entitled to free speech which means they are free to publish their personal research, opinions, and speculations about anything in Sacred Scripture.

When it comes to Catholic doctrines which flow from the reality of the first three chapters of Genesis, a proper protocol is precisely followed.

In the Catholic Church, major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils are responsible for defining Catholic doctrines which flow from the “Creation story along with Adam and Eve.” Not only are Scripture Scholars consulted; but also the writings of Apostles, Early Church Fathers, theologians, philosophers, saints, liturgical practices, and at times, anonymous authors. (Index of Citations, page 689 & following, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

Please note that not every word of these prominent contributors automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. It is through the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John) that we now have infallible truths based on the historical events found in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact.

Jim

 

[Della]

Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact.

Jim

Let’s consult the CCC.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

For our discussion the important phrase is “the symbolism of biblical language.” Other terms might be metaphorical, mythological, allegorical language. None of these terms means “not literal” as in not historical or not real. A literal, historical event may be described using any of these forms of language. They say nothing at all about the literalness of the event.

Adam and Eve, according to Church teaching, were real people who actually did rebel and cause humankind to lose connection to God. Both of our primordial parents were to blame. Indeed, Adam actually bore most of the blame and burden. He had the priestly function of standing between his loved ones and God, in responsibility for them. He failed Eve and he failed God and so lost for his descendants God’s grace, which Christ, the Second Adam restored to us.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Della;

None of these terms means “not literal” as in not historical or not real.

Actually, allegorical means, not literal.

It is only true within the context of spirituality, not in the literal sense.

We know that the world was not created in six, twenty four hour days.

We know that the sun does not rise in the sky.

However, the story of creation and Adam and Eve are meant to convey that God created all that is. He created man and woman and man and woman fell from God’s grace through sin.

This is the teaching of the Church today.

Back in the Dark Ages, it was probably accepted literally, but they also had a misunderstanding of the universe as well.

Jim

 

[grannymh]

Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

Jim

Please. Where is that particular properly defined Catholic doctrine located?

If you are citing CCC 390, may I respectfully suggest that every word is examined as to its meaning and to its relationship with real Catholic doctrines.

I am familiar with one of the famous interpretations of CCC 390. It should be relatively easy to spot its “bait and switch” technique.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the account of the fall in Genesis … uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. 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.”

In that language, Father Guinan detects a straddling of the issue. “It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language,” he pointed out, “but it also wants to hold to historicity. Unfortunately, you can’t really have both. The catechism is clearly not the place to argue theological discussions, so whoever wrote it decided, as it were, to have it both ways.”

Link: catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

 

[Della]

Della;

Actually, allegorical means, not literal.

It is only true within the context of spirituality, not in the literal sense.

We know that the world was not created in six, twenty four hour days.

We know that the sun does not rise in the sky.

However, the story of creation and Adam and Eve are meant to convey that God created all that is. He created man and woman and man and woman fell from God’s grace through sin.

This is the teaching of the Church today.

Back in the Dark Ages, it was probably accepted literally, but they also had a misunderstanding of the universe as well.

Jim

I’m afraid I didn’t explain well enough. A story may be fictional or real life, but either may be told through the use of mythological, allegorical, metaphorical language/forms of story telling.

The use of allegory doesn’t, in and of itself, tell us if an event was a real, historical one or not. For that we need more information than the story itself, such as the intention of the author, what he was describing, and who his target audience was. And that’s just assessing ordinary story telling. For scriptural interpretation, the CCC tells us, in the same paragraph we are told the criteria the Church uses to determine if a biblical account is actual history. For example, God creating the world is a real, historical event, but it is related in Genesis by means of mythological language–one the author’s audience understood as such.

Let’s take your example of the 24 hour creation idea. The days are not 24 hours days, but epochs. The term evening and morning are mythological terms used to denote the passage of time. However, the events still took place. The Earth was without form and void–at a particular epoch in it’s creation, etc. Adam and Eve were real people, but their story is told, in two creation stories, using mythological language. But the important message for us, as interpreted by the Church, is that through their disobedience sin and death entered the world for the human race.

So much depends on the truths told in many types of writing styles in Scripture that it is, IMNO, dangerous to misuse terms, such as literal or not literal because most people don’t understand that a story doesn’t have to be told in a literal writing style to be a true story. I’m sorry to write so many words, but considering the misunderstanding most people have about how the Bible conveys truth, I feel it’s important to make distinctions.

 

[grannymh]

Della;

Actually, allegorical means, not literal.

It is only true within the context of spirituality, not in the literal sense.

We know that the world was not created in six, twenty four hour days.

We know that the sun does not rise in the sky.

However, the story of creation and Adam and Eve are meant to convey that God created all that is. He created man and woman and man and woman fell from God’s grace through sin.

This is the teaching of the Church today.

Back in the Dark Ages, it was probably accepted literally, but they also had a misunderstanding of the universe as well.

Jim

While this sentence is very nice – “He created man and woman and man and woman fell from God’s grace through sin.” – you may not realize the foundation for this kind of thinking.

The foundation dates to the 1940’s where some good-hearted Catholics wanted to downgrade some valuable Catholic doctrines so that the Catholic Church could be a Big Tent where annoying doctrines can be eliminated. Today, the Big Tent would also be known as Emerging Christianity and a few Catholics would be known as Progressive Christians. Years ago, at an interesting workshop, we discussed modern Arianism, now known as stealth Arianism. Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, is being attacked left and right.

Last sentence of CCC 389

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Della,

Yes–but only in confession. The priest has the responsibility to assess penitents’ confessions–to decide if he will grant absolution. The penitent must have sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed (mortal sins), and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. If he doesn’t, the priest is within his rights to withhold absolution. Priests usually try to elicit one of these requirements from the penitent in confession because they want to be able to absolve rather than withhold absolution, if possible. They deal with people all the times who are in every circumstance imaginable. Theirs is a heavy responsibility which the vast majority take very seriously.

There is a difference between granting absolution, as a sacrament, and forgiving. For example, a priest may forgive the confessor personally and he may certainly believe and even communicate that God has forgiven them. However, I can definitely see good reason to withhold absolution, because absolution involves reconciliation, which involves both God and penitent. For example, I can see this statement reflecting the Gospel:

“Though God forgives you, you remain far from being reconciled because you are thinking that what you did was not hurtful. The sacrament is reserved for those who own their hurtful actions and are sorrowful, showing that they are in relation. Your insistence continues to indicate an alienation, so the sacrament is misplaced at this time.”

On the other hand, all sacraments are signs of what happened already, is happening in the moment, or will happen in the future. Indeed, such faith is the only practical and merciful mindset toward those presented at baptism and those who come forth in Confirmation. People can be dishonest, for sure, or not even realize that they are saying they repent without actually knowing what it means to repent. They may not even be aware of their own will!

What we can know is that God always forgives. The person who does not have sorrow or abhorrence is in the same condition as the crowd who hung Jesus, who were forgiven. Reconciliation, however, involves a seeing eye-to-eye, and the unsorrowful or unrepentant are definitely alienated.

All considered, though, a priest should be extremely hesitant about proclaiming that God has not forgiven someone. God always forgives us.

Yes, the priest’s responsibility is to assess if the person is willing to be reconciled to God and the Church in confession.

And this is my point too, but acknowledgement of reconciliation is a completely separate issue than the whole aspect of “retention”, which seems to have no pertinence here. If it is pertinent, then these questions are also very pertinent:

I, for example, retain the sins of no one, and surely there are priests who do the same. So, does God choose which priests on which to base His retention? If so, why would He choose the priest who forgives everyone, which is His call to us (and a gift of the Spirit), rather than the priest who retains?

Bottom line: there is a huge difference between saying “God does not fogive you” and “You are not reconciled, you are still alienated.” To me, it behooves the priest to help the penitent find the place in his own heart where he is sorrowful. It is there, and it may take more time than the priest has in the moment. Perhaps the most appropriate response in extreme cases might be, “God forgives you, but we still have some things to discuss before I can grant you absolution, so please come back and …”

 

[Della]

Hello Della,

There is a difference between granting absolution, as a sacrament, and forgiving. For example, a priest may forgive the confessor personally and he may certainly believe and even communicate that God has forgiven them. However, I can definitely see good reason to withhold absolution, because absolution involves reconciliation, which involves both God and penitent. For example, I can see this statement reflecting the Gospel:

“Though God forgives you, you remain far from being reconciled because you are thinking that what you did was not hurtful. The sacrament is reserved for those who own their hurtful actions and are sorrowful, showing that they are in relation. Your insistence continues to indicate an alienation, so the sacrament is misplaced at this time.”

On the other hand, all sacraments are signs of what happened already, is happening in the moment, or will happen in the future. Indeed, such faith is the only practical and merciful mindset toward those presented at baptism and those who come forth in Confirmation. People can be dishonest, for sure, or not even realize that they are saying they repent without actually knowing what it means to repent. They may not even be aware of their own will!

What we can know is that God always forgives. The person who does not have sorrow or abhorrence is in the same condition as the crowd who hung Jesus, who were forgiven. Reconciliation, however, involves a seeing eye-to-eye, and the unsorrowful or unrepentant are definitely alienated.

All considered, though, a priest should be extremely hesitant about proclaiming that God has not forgiven someone. God always forgives us.

And this is my point too, but acknowledgement of reconciliation is a completely separate issue than the whole aspect of “retention”, which seems to have no pertinence here. If it is pertinent, then these questions are also very pertinent:

I, for example, retain the sins of no one, and surely there are priests who do the same. So, does God choose which priests on which to base His retention? If so, why would He choose the priest who forgives everyone, which is His call to us (and a gift of the Spirit), rather than the priest who retains?

Bottom line: there is a huge difference between saying “God does not fogive you” and “You are not reconciled, you are still alienated.” To me, it behooves the priest to help the penitent find the place in his own heart where he is sorrowful. It is there, and it may take more time than the priest has in the moment. Perhaps the most appropriate response in extreme cases might be, “God forgives you, but we still have some things to discuss before I can grant you absolution, so please come back and …”

Um, if I am understanding what you are saying, no. Absolution is dependent on the priest’s assessment of the penitent’s state of repentance in confession. Period. Sin is retained or it is absolved. There’s no nuances of the kind you are describing. Some priests may not have the faculty to hear confessions–that’s up to his bishop. But all priests who hear confessions may absolve or retain sins. There are no shades of forgiveness or retention of sins involved in the sacrament.

 

[grannymh]

I’m afraid I didn’t explain well enough. A story may be fictional or real life, but either may be told through the use of mythological, allegorical, metaphorical language/forms of story telling.

The use of allegory doesn’t, in and of itself, tell us if an event was a real, historical one or not. For that we need more information than the story itself, such as the intention of the author, what he was describing, and who his target audience was. And that’s just assessing ordinary story telling. For scriptural interpretation, the CCC tells us, in the same paragraph we are told the criteria the Church uses to determine if a biblical account is actual history. For example, God creating the world is a real, historical event, but it is related in Genesis by means of mythological language–one the author’s audience understood as such.

Let’s take your example of the 24 hour creation idea. The days are not 24 hours days, but epochs. The term evening and morning are mythological terms used to denote the passage of time. However, the events still took place. The Earth was without form and void–at a particular epoch in it’s creation, etc. Adam and Eve were real people, but their story is told, in two creation stories, using mythological language. But the important message for us, as interpreted by the Church, is that through their disobedience sin and death entered the world for the human race.

So much depends on the truths told in many types of writing styles in Scripture that it is, IMNO, dangerous to misuse terms, such as literal or not literal because most people don’t understand that a story doesn’t have to be told in a literal writing style to be a true story. I’m sorry to write so many words, but considering the misunderstanding most people have about how the Bible conveys truth, I feel it’s important to make distinctions.

Thank you.

My perspective is not how the Bible conveys truth. I am more interested in the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

My apology. It is difficult to imagine the possible idea that the amazing intelligent author of the fascinating first three chapters of Genesis used mythological language. Just because it would be difficult to describe the reality of a spiritual Satan, no decomposing anatomy, that is not sufficient reason to replace Adam’s real blood and guts with a mythological language. I must be misunderstanding…

 

[Della]

Thank you.

My perspective is not how the Bible conveys truth. I am more interested in the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

Dramatic shift? Rather, I see it as the culmination of the creation of the physical world in the physical and metaphysical creation of man. The whole of the preceding leading up to man.

My apology. It is difficult to imagine the possible idea that the amazing intelligent author of the fascinating first three chapters of Genesis used mythological language. Just because it would be difficult to describe the reality of a spiritual Satan, no decomposing anatomy, that is not sufficient reason to replace Adam’s real blood and guts with a mythological language. I must be misunderstanding…

How else would you describe it? Again, I must not be explaining well enough. Mythological, allegorical, metaphorical story telling doesn’t negate reality in any way. And I have to point out that Adam’s “blood and guts” are not described in Genesis, only that he was created from the dust of the ground, that God breathed life into him, creating him in His image, and that he became a living man. Now, that’s mythological language telling us that Adam is 1) of the Earth, 2) a living being, 3) a sentient being of a higher order than the animals, 4) that his worth is divine, not merely physical. None of that is literally laid out in the creation stories, but it is told in a way that could be easily passed on orally, which is how most people learned it–through mythological language. They understood that the stories conveyed realities in such language. It is we moderns who don’t seem to be able to grasp this ancient form of relating events.

 

[OneSheep]

Last sentence of CCC 389

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Luke 2:52New International Version (NIV)

52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

The Church which has the mind of Christ, grows in wisdom as revelation unfolds.

 

[OneSheep]

Um, if I am understanding what you are saying, no. Absolution is dependent on the priest’s assessment of the penitent’s state of repentance in confession. Period. Sin is retained or it is absolved. There’s no nuances of the kind you are describing. Some priests may not have the faculty to hear confessions–that’s up to his bishop. But all priests who hear confessions may absolve or retain sins. There are no shades of forgiveness or retention of sins involved in the sacrament.

Hmmm. I am trying to determine here whether your statement “sin is retained” is equal to “God does not forgive you”.

God always forgives, us. Always. Yes, there are no “shades” of forgiveness.

Reconciliation, however, has a lot of gray area, does it not? The will of God is constant and unceasing, desiring relationship. The will of the penitent, and arguably all of us, is not necessarily an “on/off” switch; the nuances are as numerous as the varieties of awareness we have. We are all sinners; we all see with some fogginess.

The person who comes to the confessional is the prodigal son, who the Father rushes to embrace. Any stance contrary to this goes against the spirit of the Gospel. The penitent’s feet say “I wish for reconciliation”, and sometimes it takes more than a quick prayer to work it all out.

Are you coming from the side of the Gospel that says that God forgives conditionally?

Thanks for your response.

 

[grannymh]

Dramatic shift? Rather, I see it as the culmination of the creation of the physical world in the physical and metaphysical creation of man. The whole of the preceding leading up to man.

How else would you describe it? Again, I must not be explaining well enough. Mythological, allegorical, metaphorical story telling doesn’t negate reality in any way. And I have to point out that Adam’s “blood and guts” are not described in Genesis, only that he was created from the dust of the ground, that God breathed life into him, creating him in His image, and that he became a living man. Now, that’s mythological language telling us that Adam is 1) of the Earth, 2) a living being, 3) a sentient being of a higher order than the animals, 4) that his worth is divine, not merely physical. None of that is literally laid out in the creation stories, but it is told in a way that could be easily passed on orally, which is how most people learned it–through mythological language. They understood that the stories conveyed realities in such language. It is we moderns who don’t seem to be able to grasp this ancient form of relating events.

I always thought that the phrase blood and guts for humans included the human voice mechanism and the ears. (Genesis 2: 20; Genesis 2: 15-17)

As a modern human, in the Sacred Scripture Forum, I am currently using the alphabet, A to Z, as an easy way to actually examine the flat out reality of the informative first three chapters of Genesis. It is my personal opinion that using the alphabet is a fun way to grasp the down-to-earth language used by the brilliant author of a classic.

Small additional thought. Being a sentiment being of a higher order than the animals is not a full explanation of a human being’s unique unification of both the material and spiritual (rational soul) worlds.