Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 02/24/2011 3:15:40 PM PST by NYer
February 23rd, 2011
By Father Robert Barron
Anti-Catholicism has long been a feature of both the high and the low culture in America. From the 19th century to the middle of the 20th, it was out in the open: Many editorialists, cartoonists, politicians and other shapers of popular opinion in that era were crudely explicit in their opposition to the Catholic Church. But then, in the latter half of the 20th century, anti-Catholicism went relatively underground. It still existed, to be sure, but it was considered bad form to be too obvious about it. However, in the last 10 years or so, the old demon has resurfaced.
There are many reasons for this, including the animosity to religion in general prompted by 9/11 and the clerical sex-abuse scandal that has, legitimately enough, besmirched the reputation of the Catholic Church. I’m not interested here so much in exploring the precipitating causes of this negative attitude as I am in showing the crudity and unintelligence of its latest manifestations. Permit me to share two examples.
I’m reading James Miller’s “Examined Lives,” a biographical study of 12 great philosophers, from Socrates to Nietzsche. I found Miller’s treatment of St. Augustine to be extraordinary, not because it shed any particularly new light on the saint’s work, but because it was so unapologetically anti-Catholic. Miller comments approvingly on the young Augustine, the intellectual seeker who moved from Manichaeism to neo-Platonism in the open-minded quest for the always elusive truth. But on Miller’s reading, the seeker’s fall from grace was his embrace of the “closed system” of Christianity, which led Augustine to become a coldly oppressive sectarian. Here is how Miller brings his analysis of Augustine to a close: “He lay the conceptual grounds for creating perhaps the most powerful community of closed belief in world history – the Catholic Church that ruled over medieval Western Europe as an all-encompassing, if not quite totalitarian theocracy, unrivalled before or since by any other religious or secular one party state, be it Muslim or Communist.” The not so subtle implication (despite that little “not quite” in front of “totalitarian”) is that the Catholic Church has proven more oppressive than the Taliban and the states fronted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
But Miller’s excursions into anti-Catholicism seem as nothing, compared to the exertions of Mark Warren, the executive editor of Esquire magazine. In a piece on his blog last week, Warren drew attention to a recent expose of the church of Scientology which appeared in the pages of the New Yorker magazine. He praised the author for revealing the ridiculous beliefs of Scientology, which are based upon the wild, science fiction-like musings of L. Ron Hubbard. But then Warren commented that these claims are no wilder, no more irrational, than those of any other of the “great” religions, including and especially Christianity. What follows is one of the most ludicrous “summaries” of Christian belief I’ve ever read. Here are some highlights: “I grew up believing that every breath I drew sent a god-made man named Jesus Christ writhing on the cross to which he had been nailed – an execution for which he had been sent to earth by his heavenly father.” And “yet I was born not innocent but complicit in this lynching, incomprehensibly having to apologize and atone for this barbarism for all my days and feel terrible about myself and all mankind.”
One notices here something that is also on display in the anti-Christian polemics of Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens, namely, a presentation of Christianity that is informed by a painfully childish “theology,” something out of a half-understood grade school catechism. For example, Maher, Hitchens, Warren and many other critics speak of the Christian belief in a “sky god,” betraying no sensitivity to the dynamics of symbolic language in a religious context. The “heavenly” Father of whom biblically minded people speak is not a being who dwells in the clouds but rather a reality that radically transcends the categories of ordinary experience. And I can only smile at the sheer weirdness of Warren’s characterization of the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death on the cross. The correct doctrine is that God, in Christ, entered, out of love, into the depth of human misery, sin and failure in order to bring the divine light even to those darkest places.
What is most remarkable in all of this is not the unintelligence of the explicit claims being made but rather the blatancy of the contempt for the church. When this hoary old prejudice shows itself, Catholics have to stand up to it, lest it be allowed to evolve into something even more dangerous.
The libs will take the side of the Catholic Church over Fundamentalist Protestant "rednecks," in a heartbeat. In fact they are quite quick to quote Catholic theologians when attacking creationism.
Who are you to say that Evangelicals "hate" anyone? Are you quoting them or just impugning them from your own context?
Catholics may not "hate" Evangelicals, but they look down on them with the same hyper-intellectual, urban smirk that liberals do. Indeed, anti-Fundamentalist Catholic polemics usually sound (or read) identical to liberal spewage on religion in general.
“the MSM hates us both but the Evangelicals hate the Catholics. Hence, we are the last acceptable prejudice. Wake up.”
Well this Baptist doesn’t hate you.
And since it teaches evolution and higher criticism, that "one church" is wrong.
Hogwash. Redneck bigotry is a lot more prevalent among Jews than Catholics, who tend to come from lower income classes.
Yeah - and carbon dating and all those cave paintings are a conspiracy by the Opus Dei society to disparage Genesis.
The Church's unofficial position is that the Theistic Evolution is not in conflict or incompatible with the Bible. The Bible declares THAT God created the universe and everything in it including man, but does not attempt to explain How He accomplished it.
What does your Church teach about the age of the earth, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, the geocentric universe, and the location of the pillars that hold up the sky?
Most of the Baptists I have known have been some of the most sincere, kindest people I have ever known. We (Catholics) may disagree on on many points of doctrine, but we share in sync on the core of the Gospels which are the Beatitudes.
Thank you for proving my point. I could expect nothing else from a fan of H.L. Mencken.
Actually, it's de facto position is that if you don't accept evolution, you can't be Catholic.
The Bible declares THAT God created the universe and everything in it including man, but does not attempt to explain How He accomplished it.
Then why didn't it just say "G-d created the universe" and leave it at that? Don't tell me, I know. "Genesis is based on the earlier Babylonian and Canaanite creation myths which were gradually over the centuries purified of pagan elements." I neglected to mention that Catholics are also required to accept Wellhausen as well as Darwin.
What does your Church teach about the age of the earth, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, the geocentric universe, and the location of the pillars that hold up the sky?
What church? I don't have a church, remember? (And thank G-d!)
I do know, however, that contrary to what most chr*stian churches teach, G-d wrote the entirety of the Torah and then dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter. No Enuma elish involved.
I'm pinging dangus and cronos because in other threads they have been expressing surprise that I would attribute the views you describe to any orthodox Catholic outside the liberal Northeast.
If you are so sure please substantiate that with a citation of the applicable Church doctrine.
I neglected to mention that Catholics are also required to accept Wellhausen as well as Darwin."
Who told you that lie? Can you subnstantiate that with a citation as well?
"I don't have a church, remember?"
That is why I used a lower case "c".
"I do know, however, that contrary to what most chr*stian churches teach, G-d wrote the entirety of the Torah and then dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter."
Looks like you are going to be 0 for 4 in the citation department which pretty much confirms your assertions as not much more than the vainglorious musings of a terribly misinformed person.
Since ZC is obviously stalking this issue from thread to thread, I’ll repost what I wrote on a previous thread:
1. There’s a very popular school of thought, particularly among left-leaning denominations, that the bible in general is not to be taken literally. In the 70s, this had begun to catch on in the United States even among Catholics. The Vatican has weighed in strongly, and it is popular mostly among only borderline (non-observant) Catholics and those on the left who are heretics for many other reasons as well.
2. There are many young-earth Creationist Catholics,
3. Probably the largest group in the United States are those who read Genesis 1 literally, except for the issue of time periods. Genesis 1 refers to “days” before the earth was set in motion around the sun, so these people simply hold that “day” means simply a period of time, during which God executed Intelligent Design throughout the universe.
4. Finally, there are many who are largely literalists, but regard the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a “special case.” They hold that with most of the bible, what is recorded is revelation: People witnessing the action of God, and recording it, protected from error by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Genesis 11 represents a pre-history, where instead of writing down the absolute and literal truth as they witnessed it, they wrote down creation as they understood it, guided by the Holy Spirit to infuse it with powerful, deep, and true revelations about the human condition.
>> Actually, it’s de facto position is that if you don’t accept evolution, you can’t be Catholic. <<
Statements as irrational as this demonstrate there’s no reason wasting further time writing replies.
HaHaHa...All of your religion's positions are unofficial...Keeps 'em from getting stuck in a corner...
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Well, God has an official position as you can see...And as usual, God's position is 180 degrees from your religion's position...
Only morons believe that Evolution and Creationism are an either or proposition and that God is only capable of performing in an "abracadabra" process. Only a moron would project their own cognitive limitations on to God.
"After their kind" is a Biblical recognition of DNA (which was considered scientific magic a hundred years ago). Genetics study have been able to reveal is that in fact new species which appear do in fact contain the DNA from both parents. The new species are very much “according to their kinds” and yet God has provided the mechanism for variation to occur on earth. The beauty of the process increases, not diminishes God's creation.
Of course you will find some Catholics, like me are in communion with the Church, disagree with me. However, it has not declared wither of us wrong and neither is it implying that any of the new species that have appeared in the last 4,000 years are somehow demonic.
What are you talking about??? Limiting God??? I'm sure God could turn you into a chimpanzee before the night's over with if he chose to do so...
Has nothing to do with limiting God...It has every thing to do with believing what God said...
It has everything to do with limiting God. The first limitation you place on him is taking away his ability to speak in anything except a linear, literal, chronological manner. He’s not allowed to use metaphor or symbol, at least not until you get to John chapter 6.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The problem with that theory is that in order to use a metaphor, it has to shed light on what it is being compared to...
And the best you guys can do is to say that, 'it doesn't mean what it says, but we have no idea to what it is alluding to'...
It is then no longer a metaphor...
A metaphor is used to emphasize the qualities of something by saying they are like another.
Metaphor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy ...
If you don't know what the likeness is, the term metaphor has failed...
You may believe Genesis is a metaphor for something else but if you don't know the something else, you need to find a different theory...
There is no reason to suggest God uses metaphors in Genesis Creation when you can't get a clear picture of what He is saying by using the metaphor...That's the reason for the metaphor...
The problem lies not in what is being said in Genesis because it's pretty clear...The problem is in believing it...
And then there's the motive...What reason does one have NOT to believe what God said literally???
And does God speak in metaphors??? Sure He does...Look at Song of Solomon if you want metaphors...But again, there you will get a picture of what the metaphors mean...Completely unlike your suggestion of metaphors in the Creation story of Genesis...
Iscool, please forgive the length of this reply. It is not my intention to overwhelm by volume, but to answer as completely as I can, in the small time I have. I will try to format appropriately. Except for my own, small answer immediately following this sentence, all is from the Catholic Catechism, the official statement of Catholic Belief.
You said, “And then there’s the motive...What reason does one have NOT to believe what God said literally???”
(This part is taken from www.drbo.org - John, Chapter 6)
“[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”
My FRiend, I believe what He said here literally. With all of my heart.
Okay, back to the point you focused on. Regarding what the Catholic Church believes about Genesis. Here is some of it, from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM, the Catechism. It is THE compendium of what we, as Catholics, believe. If you find a person who professes the Catholic Faith, they believe this, by definition. For 2,000 years. And, again, please pardon the length; the intent is to educate, gently.
“Paragraph 6. MAN
355 “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
356 of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. and he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223
359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”224
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . the first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. the first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life... the second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. the first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. the last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”225
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226
O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
361 “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.
II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239
III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”
Equality and difference willed by God
369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.
370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241
“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. the Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.”242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.
372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (”bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247
373 In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”,249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.
IV. MAN IN PARADISE
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
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”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251
376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. the first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.”
Also, same source:
“Paragraph 7. THE FALL
385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”.258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace.259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.260
I. WHERE SIN ABOUNDED, GRACE ABOUNDED ALL THE MORE
The reality of sin
386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.
387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.
Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. the Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. the Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
How to read the account of the fall
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
II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”268
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”272
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”275
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. the prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”276 The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man’s first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281
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
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. and even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
409 This dramatic situation of “the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one”302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303
IV. “YOU DID NOT ABANDON HIM TO THE POWER OF DEATH”
410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (”first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the “Proto-evangelium” as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”307 and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”308”
I realize this is a lot to read. But I wanted you to see at least some of the official Church teaching. We believe Genesis. We also know that there are different ways to write, to convey information in different ways. We are biblical, most definitely Scriptural. That doesn’t mean that your point of view necessarily agrees with our, although we wish it. It does mean, that, in this respect, we have more in common, in some ways, than your realize. With that, I must return to readying for the day’s teaching. I truly, prayerfully, hope that this enlightens, and helps you on your way.
sayuncledave
Oops, not enough coffee yet. Tha should have been “than you realize.” I’ll have more coffee now. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.