|
Purity of Heart: The Moral Life- Teachings |
 THE
CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING OF ORIGINAL SIN
LUST VERSUS LOVE: CONCUPISCENCE AND THE ETHOS OF REDEMPTION
(AS THEY RELATE TO ORIGINAL SIN)
Steven M. Lee
August 15,
2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Scriptural Basis for Original Sin
a. Genesis
b. Wisdom Books
c. St. Paul
III. Original Sin in the Tradition of the Church
a. The Church Fathers (before St. Augustine)
i. Baptism and Transmission of Original Sin
b. St. Augustine
c. Councils of Carthage, Orange and Trent
d. Current Church Teaching
IV. Concupiscence and the Ethos of Redemption
a. John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body
b. Jesus’ statement regarding marriage before
the fall (Mt 19:3; Mk 10:2)
c. Nuptial meaning of the body
d. Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5: 27-28)
e. Ethos of Redemption of the Body
f. Love
I. Introduction
This paper attempts to track the basis for original sin in
Scripture, to highlight the development of the concept of
original sin from the Church Fathers to the present, and
finally, to discuss the interplay of concupiscence and the ethos
of redemption in historical (fallen, yet redeemed) man.
Redemption and salvation cannot be understood without reference
to (original) sin. Through Jesus Christ, fallen human nature
was raised up to the possibility of something greater than
before the fall.[1]
As St. Paul wrote, where sin increased, grace abounded all the
more (Rom 5:20).
II.
Scriptural Basis for Original Sin
The
scriptural basis for original sin is found in the following
books: a) Genesis, b) Wisdom Books, and c) the writings of St.
Paul.[2]
a. Genesis
Biblical scholars generally agree that the book of Genesis is
composed of interwoven traditions.[3]
One of these traditions is known as the Yahwistic source,
primarily because it uses the name Yahweh to describe God.[4]
The Yahwistic source tells the story of the fall of Adam (and
Eve).[5]
The name Adam, in Hebrew haadam, expresses the collective
concept of the human species, in other words, mankind.[6]
The story of Adam and Eve belongs to the genre of myth, but myth
reflecting truths.[7]
The Yahwist account describes man’s happiness before the fall as
having the following characteristics: a) man had access to the
tree of life, b) man had immunity from death and sickness, c)
man had mastery over the animals and enjoyed the fruits of the
earth, and lastly, d) man’s nakedness caused him no shame.[8]
This final point refers not only to man’s sexual purity, but
also to man’s ability to make pure and uncomplicated
relationships with others.[9]
The tempter in the Garden of Eden was the serpent, which
represented the devil.[10]
The devil seduced man to eat the fruit from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.[11]
Man succumbed to this temptation, and lost his blessings.[12]
Man was removed from the Garden of Eden, and denied access to
the tree of life.[13]
Man became subject to death, pain and disease, aware and ashamed
of his own nakedness.[14]
Now man had to work hard to earn his living.[15]
Woman became subject to the pain of childbirth.[16]
Thus, harmony with creation was broken as a result of the sin of
Adam and Eve.[17]
The story of
Adam and Eve is an attempt to explain symbolically the existence
of evil in man’s condition.[18]
The Yahwist’s account blames man for man’s fallen condition.[19]
Man’s sin broke the harmony of God’s original plan for man.[20]
As a consequence of this original sin, subsequent generations
were transmitted a human nature in a fallen state.[21]
This is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical
sense, because original sin is “contracted” and not “committed”.[22]
That is, original sin is a state and not an act.[23]
Thus, as a result of original sin, generations subsequent to
Adam and Eve did not inherit guilt and punishment.[24]
The inheritance
of guilt and punishment by subsequent generations of an
individual sinner was nonetheless a common belief among the
ancient Hebrews.[25]
This belief was reflected in the Hebrew proverb: “The fathers
have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are on edge.”[26]
Some of the prophets attempted to lead Israel to a more refined
consciousness, and denied the truth of the proverb (Jer
31:29-30; Ezek 18:24).[27]
However, the Yahwist source probably saw the consequences of
original sin as inherited punishment to the whole human race.[28]
In the Yahwist view, it was not the individual’s own sins that
brought evils upon him, but the sins of his ancestors.[29]
b. The
Wisdom Books.
The later Wisdom Books begin to shift away from the Yahwist’s
philosophy of life.[30]
Death was viewed as a fact of man’s existence, rather than as a
consequence of sin.[31]
The prophets foresaw a new age free from distress and impulse,
with man free from premature death.[32]
For behold, I create
new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be
remembered or come into mind... I will rejoice in Jerusalem and
be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of
weeping and the cry of distress. No more shall there be in it
an infant that lives but a few days, or an old man who does not
fill out his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old,
to fall short of a hundred years shall be reckoned a curse (Is
65:17-20;RSV version changed in last line).[33]
There was not yet a belief in life after death.[34]
Instead, death was the end, a final separation from evil, and
premature death was punishment for one’s own sins or the sins of
one’s ancestors.[35]
Conversely, prosperity and long life were rewards for virtue:
“Yet
a little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look
well at his place, he will not be there. But the meek shall
possess the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity”
(Ps 37:10-11).[36]
The Wisdom Books
frequently discuss man’s evil heart:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
corrupt; who can understand it?”
(Jer 17:9). “A new
heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you;
and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give
you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26).[37]
Wisdom writings composed in post-exilic times began to connect
the story of Adam with man’s fallen condition: “From a woman sin
had its beginnings, and because of her we all die” (Eccles
25:24).[38]
By the time the Wisdom of Solomon was written in the first
century before Christ, there was a belief in an after-life,
where the unjust suffered “anguish of spirit” and the righteous
was “numbered among the sons of God”(Wis 5:35).[39]
The Wisdom authors viewed death as the work of the devil, toward
which all sinners head:
“Do not invite death by the error of life,
nor bring on destruction by the works of your hands;
because God did not make death,
and he does not delight in the death of the living.
For he created all things that they might exist...
And the dominion of Hades is not on earth.
For righteousness is immortal.
But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death;
considering him a friend they pined away,
and they make a covenant with him,
because they are fit to belong to his party...
For God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
but through the devil’s envy death entered into the world, and
those who belong to his party experience it”
(Wis 1:13-16;
2:23-24).[40]
The author of Wisdom
means death as something more than the end of life on earth,
since the just die in this sense also:
“The righteous man,
though he die early, will be at rest. For old age is not honored
for length of time (4.7-8). Early death and suffering can both
be means by which God prepares the just for the reward in the
next life: Having been disciplined a little, they will receive
great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of
himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a
sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them”(Wis 3:5-6).[41]
Instead, death for the evil doers who belong to the devil’s
party means more than physical death. Such death would include
a spiritual death in the after-life.[42]
In contrast, the just man’s death is not the end, since the just
man would dwell with God in the after-life:
“The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment will ever touch them.
In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,
and their departure was thought to be an affliction,
and their going from us to be like a destruction,
but they are at peace... Their hope is full of immortality...
The faithful will abide with him in love”(Wis 3:1-4,9).
“Love of her [wisdom] is
the keeping of her Laws
and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, and
immortality brings one near to God” (Wis 6:18-19).[43]
In summary, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom describe mankind as having
fallen from its original immortality, and now liable to physical
death as well as spiritual death in the after-life.[44]
Man’s fall is the result of sin, beginning with original sin.[45]
Thus, the theology of Wisdom literature evolved to reflect a
belief in the inherited evil consequences of sin, which an
individual, in turn, may aggravate through his own personal
sins.[46]
c. St. Paul
St. Paul also
believed in an inherited evil consequence or state of sin, which
we would now term “concupiscence”, and speaks at length about it
in the following well-known passage from the letter to the
Romans:
“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal,
sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions.
For I do not do what
I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do
not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer
I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that
nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will
what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I
want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what
I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which
dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to
do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of
God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at
war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of
sin which dwells in my members”(Rom 7:14-23).[47]
In the next
verse of this passage St. Paul links concupiscence with death:
“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of
death?” (Rom 7:24).[48]
Clearly, St. Paul believed, as did the authors of Ecclesiasticus
and Wisdom, that sin led to more than just physical death.[49]
The source of sin and the spiritual death resulting from it was
Adam: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made
alive”(1 Cor 15:22).[50]
St. Paul further discussed the contrast between Adam and Christ
in his letter to the Romans:
“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. For as by
one man’s disobedience many are made sinners, so by one man’s
obedience many will be made righteous”(Rom 5:18-19).[51]
An interrupted sentence at the beginning of this section in the
letter to the Romans again discusses the link between
(spiritual) death and sin: “As sin came into the world through
one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men
because all men sinned...”(Rom 5:12).[52]
This passage raises the question of what St. Paul meant by the
phrase “because all men sinned.”[53]
The word “because” in this phrase is a translation of the Greek
word eph’nÇi,
for which another possible translation is “so that.”[54]
The word “because” seems to imply a belief that mankind sins as
a result of inherited example (we sin by our own choice, like
Adam) or inherited guilt (Adam’s sin makes us sinners, whether
we choose to sin or not).[55]
If eph’nÇi
is interpreted as “so that”, then this implies that Adam gave
mankind a fallen state, an inherited tendency to sin, which
leads us to sin.[56]
The logic of St. Paul’s passage in Romans taken as a whole,
however, supports the interpretation of “inherited guilt.”[57]
Adam’s disobedience, makes us sinners, just like Christ’s
obedience analogously gives us redemption.[58]
In St. Paul’s mind, both Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemption seem
to be parallel events, neither dependent upon our choices.[59]
As previously stated herein, the Church today has rejected the
notion that original sin is “inherited guilt”, and teaches that
we tend toward sin, because of our fallen state which in turn
results from original sin.[60]
III. Original Sin
in the Tradition of the Church
a. The Church Fathers (before
St. Augustine)
Original
sin’s basis is well rooted in both Old and New Testament
Scripture. However, Scripture scholars insist that the idea of
original sin is a post New Testament development, first emerging
and developing incrementally in the reflection of Church Fathers
during the first four centuries after Christ.[61]
St. Augustine fixed the meaning of original sin in the fifth
century.[62]
Original sin was not formally introduced into the Church’s
doctrinal tradition until the Church Councils of Carthage (418
A.D.) and Orange (529 A.D.). This section shall highlight some
of the development of the idea of original sin in the Patristic
Tradition, beginning with Clement of Alexandria.
Clement of
Alexandria (d. 215) proposed that sin was inherited from Adam,
but viewed this inheritance as a bad example, not the sin
itself.[63]
Ireneaus of Lyons (d. 200) interpreted Adam’s sin in Genesis 3
as simply disobedience, and not as a cosmic fall.[64]
He discussed Adam’s sin mainly in the context of refuting
gnostic ideas that sin was inevitable in the material world, and
that human beings needed to be liberated from the material
world.[65]
Thus, Adam’s sin was a factor in Irenaeus’ theology of
redemption, but not much thought was given to the cause of
mankind’s shared sinfulness.[66]
Mankind’s shared sinfulness was briefly considered by early
Christian apologists. In general, Christians apologists offered
philosophical justifications for Christian beliefs to
Greco-Roman society.[67]
One such apologist was Justin Martyr (d. 165).[68]
Justin Martyr wrote about the necessity of infant baptism in his
treatise, First Apology, on the grounds that infants are
born with wayward inclinations.[69]
Justin acknowledged the sinful condition of humankind, but took
the sin of Adam and Eve as simply the prototype of personal sin.[70]
Justin believed sin originated in man’s free will.[71]
Adam’s sin diminished the power to resist evil, but freedom was
not completely lost.[72]
Human beings were more in need of divine help to avoid sin, but
could still avoid sin without divine intervention.[73]
Justin explained the origin of evil through a demonology.[74]
Thus, Christ’s redemption was breaking the power of the demonic
over mankind according to Justin Martyr.[75]
Unlike Justin Martyr, Tertullian (d. 220), an early Christian
writer, did not see the need for baptizing infants.[76]
Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism does prove that infant
baptism was practiced during his time.[77]
Tertullian believed the inclination toward sin due to Adam was
not itself a sin which required the forgiveness of baptism.[78]
In contrast, the forgiveness of baptism was necessary to remove
the stain of original sin according to the Alexandrian
theologian Origen (d. 299).[79]
Origen was the first to name the sin “original sin.”[80]
In speaking about infants’ souls in his Homily on Leviticus,
Origen stated, “all are tainted with the stain of original sin
which must be washed off by water and the Spirit.”[81]
Origen saw both Genesis 3 and the defilement texts in the Psalms
as the basis of his position.[82]
An example of a defilement text is Psalm 51:5, “Indeed, I was
born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.”[83]
The origin of the soul thus became relevant to the discussion
about mankind’s solidarity in Adam’s sin.[84]
How was Adam’s sin passed on and how has this transmission
related to the origin of souls?[85]
One theory held that sexual intercourse and biological
conception generated the body and soul together.[86]
This theory was called traducianism or generationism.[87]
Tertullian favored this view because it best explained mankind’s
solidarity in sin with Adam.[88]
Because Adam’s sin caused a defect in human nature, all of
Adam’s descendants received a defective body and soul.[89]
Thus, Ignatius of Antioch, applying the traducianist theory was
able to reason that the virgin birth of Jesus permitted one to
conclude that: a) all men enter by birth into sinful condition,
and b) that Jesus, a man, is without Adam’s sin.[90]
Adam’s sin, and mankind’s solidarity to it was also explained by
a second theory regarding the origin of souls. St. Jerome (d.
420) believed in the divine creation of the individual soul.[91]
The soul was not eternal, but created by God at the moment of
physical conception.[92]
This theory did not help explain the transmission of Adam’s sin.[93]
A third view held that all souls, human and angelic, were
created at the same time.[94]
Under this theory, sin occurred in the transcendent realm, and
the punishment for this sin was the fall into the material
world.[95]
This third theory was the view held by Origen.[96]
Origen did not think original sin was based upon mankind’s
solidarity in sin with Adam.[97]
Instead, he believed Adam’s sin was a bad example that induced
others to commit personal sins in the transcendental world.[98]
Origen, like Justin Martyr, believed evil in the world was
caused by “exposure to the continuous assaults of malignant
demons.”[99]
i.
Baptism and Transmission of Original Sin
By the third century, members of the early Church generally
shared the following three beliefs regarding original sin: 1)
that the Church baptized infants because they were born with
original sin, 2) the sin possessed by infants required to be
forgiven was Adam’s sin, and 3) Adam’s sin was physically
transmitted through sexual intercourse.[100]
St. Cyprian (d. 258), the Bishop of Carthage, described original
sin as a “primeval contagion” inherited by each person through
sexual intercourse.[101]
Cyprian cited the defilement language of Psalm 51:5 in support
of his position: “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when
my mother conceived me.”[102]
Cyprian writes:
“We ought not to
shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not
sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to
Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at
its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very
account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to
him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”[103]
Later,
Augustine cited Cyprian’s views in making the circular argument
that the practice of infant baptism proved the presence of a sin
in infants that was inevitable, but for which they were held
responsible.[104]
St. Augustine also adopted the view of a fourth century writer
called Ambrosiaster, who derived the concept of original sin
from Romans 5:12, which in the NRSV reads as follows:
“Therefore, just as
sin came into the world through one man, and death came through
sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned...”[105]
The Latin
Vulgate translation used by Ambrosiaster read “in whom all
sinned instead of “because all have sinned.”[106]
Ambrosiaster thus came to the conclusion that we are all sinners
from Adam, since we all physically (Ambrosiaster believed this
literally) derive from Adam.[107]
The consequences were death, the infection of mankind with
Adam’s guilt and a tendency to sin.[108]
Original sin
was the problem which Ambrosiaster writes, Christ remedied.[109]
He argued that Adam’s human nature was composed of body and
soul.[110]
However, human nature redeemed by Christ was composed of body,
soul, and the (Holy) Spirit.[111]
Thus, for Ambrosiaster, redeemed human nature was not a return
to the pre-fall state of Adam or a return to something less than
that, but instead an elevation of human nature, to a new and
better status.[112]
This concept of a redeemed human nature which is superior to
man’s original state is at the heart of John Paul the Great’s
Theology of the Body, which shall be discussed below.
b. St. Augustine
St.
Augustine is generally credited with shaping the classical
doctrine of original sin.[113]
He defined some of the basic terms, such as peccatum
originans (the event of original sin) and peccatum
originatum (the condition of original sin in humankind).[114]
Much of his thought developed when responding to conflicting
theological views, like those of the Donatists.
The Donatists
argued that the Church included only those who were morally and
spiritually pure.[115]
St. Augustine held that God’s grace allowed man to grow in moral
and spiritual purity, but he considered moral and spiritual
purity a human impossibility.[116]
Original sin gave mankind a permanent inclination to sin even
after baptism.[117]
Consequently, the Church could not include only those who were
morally and spiritually pure, because such a state does not
exist in human beings.[118]
Human beings,
according to Augustine, evolved through three historical
categories with three corresponding states: 1) created, with the
state of original blessedness, 2) fallen, with the state of
fallenness, 3) redeemed, with the state of restored and graced
nature.[119]
In his original state, man possessed supernatural gifts
including immortality, integrity and knowledge.[120]
Man also possessed the ability not to sin (posse non peccare),
as well as freedom.[121]
Adam committed the sin of pride, by failing to acknowledge
absolute dependence upon God.[122]
By sinning, Adam lost the supernatural gifts for himself and his
fallen descendants.[123]
The fallen
descendants of Adam, as a result of Adam’s sin, possess
mortality, ignorance (loss of knowledge and intimacy with God),
and difficulty (loss of the ability to accomplish the good one
wills).[124]
The passions now interfere with and dominate rational thought in
a disorder called concupiscence.[125]
Although baptism removes original sin and guilt for
concupiscence, concupiscence remains.[126]
Concupiscence is not in itself a sin, but rather inclines one to
sin.[127]
Grace elevates human nature, but does not remove the distortion
caused by Adam (concupiscence).[128]
Concupiscence
can be characterized by sexual passion, but it is much broader
in meaning.[129]
St. Augustine describes his own concupiscence in Confessions,
and writes: “I sought pleasure, sublimity, and truth not in God
but in his creatures, in myself and other created beings.”[130]
Moreover, Augustine believes man in his fallen state has lost
his ability not to sin (posse non peccare) and gained an
inability not to sin (necessitas peccandi) by human will alone.[131]
Human nature possesses not only the penalty for original sin
(concupiscence), but also the sin itself.[132]
Liberation can only come from a divine infusion of the Holy
Spirit, caritas, love for truth and goodness, and for
doing what is truth and goodness.[133]
Augustine believes that through the grace won by Christ, persons
can overcome concupiscence and discover God as their source of
happiness: “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is
restless until it rests in you (God)”.[134]
God, through
the life, death and resurrection of his only Son, Jesus, has
redeemed humanity, and brought it back to its original direction
and purpose.[135]
For Augustine, just like Ambrosiaster, despite concupiscence,
redemptive grace raises human nature to a higher state.[136]
The destiny of redeemed humanity is union with God in heaven,
where man will surpass Adam by possessing an inability to sin.[137]
Much of St. Augustine’s reasoning was adopted into Church canon
in the year 418, at the Council of Carthage.[138]
c. Councils of
Carthage, Orange and Trent
The
Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. passed several canons to correct
the errors of Pelagianism, which essentially held that human
beings could achieve salvation through their own sustained
efforts.[139]
The Council of Carthage condemned the beliefs that:
1. Adam would have died whether or not he sinned.
2. Babies are not baptized for the remission of sins and do not
contract original sin from Adam.
3. There is an intermediate state for unbaptized babies between
hell and heaven.[140]
The Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529) further refined the
canons of Carthage, adding that as a result of Adam’s sin, his
descendants: 1) suffer physical death and sin (death of the
soul), and 2) possess a weakened free will.[141]
In 1546, in the Council of Trent, the following decrees were
passed on original sin:
“1) Adam by his sin lost ‘sanctity and justice’, incurred God’s
anger, became subject to death and the devil’s captive. He was
thus affected in both body and soul.
2) These consequences affected also his descendants: i.e. the
loss of sanctity and justice, the physical effects like death,
and ‘sin, which is the death of the soul’. Rom 5:12 is quoted
in support of this view.
3) Adam’s one sin is communicated to his descendants ‘by
propagation not imitation’, so that it belongs to each
individual. It cannot be removed by human effort but only by
the redemption won by Christ. This restoration is applied by
baptism to both adults and babies.
4) The baptism of babies, even those of Christian parents, is a
legitimate and necessary practice, and remits sin in them,
namely the original sin they contract from Adam.
5) Through the grace
of Christ conferred at baptism ‘the guilt[142]
of original sin’, which has the ‘true and authentic nature of
sin’, is removed. It is not that this guilt simply ceases to be
‘imputed’; there remains in the baptized ‘no condemnation’ (cf.
Rom 8:1) to keep them from heaven; they become renewed and
innocent. Concupiscence, however, remains in the baptized. It
is a challenge rather than a source of harm, and in the baptized
is called ‘sin’ not literally but because ‘it comes from sin and
inclines to sin’.
6) The above is said
without prejudice to belief in the Immaculate Conception.”[143]
d.
Current Church Teaching
In his
encyclical letter, Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul
VI discussed original sin:
“We believe that in
Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense
committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall
to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense,
and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first
parents - established as they were in holiness and justice, and
in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so
fallen stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own
natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is
transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man
is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent,
that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, ‘not by
imitation, but by propagation’ and that it is thus ‘proper to
everyone’.”[144]
Pope Paul VI
also stated that Christ had redeemed us from original sin and
all personal sin, so that (citing Romans 5:20) “where sin
abounded, grace did more abound.”[145]
Regarding baptism, Pope Paul VI wrote that this sacrament should
be administered even to little children who are not capable of
being guilty of any personal sin, so that, “though born deprived
of supernatural grace, they may be reborn ‘of water and the Holy
Spirit’ to the divine life in Jesus Christ.”[146]
The divine life
in Jesus, imparted by Baptism, and which the Church does not
cease to administer, was discussed by Pope John Paul the Great
at a homily when he baptized 19 infants at the Sistine Chapel.[147]
The Holy Father stated that baptism frees man from original sin
and forgives sins. Baptism saves man from slavery to evil and
is a sign of his rebirth in the Holy Spirit.[148]
It imparts to him a new life, which is the participation in the
life of the Trinity.[149]
The Trinity is
a communion or relation of three Persons in one God.[150]
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) explained the concept
of original sin in terms of relationships.[151]
The Cardinal wrote that human beings are relational, and that
they possess their lives only by way of relationship.[152]
To be truly human means being related to others in love.[153]
Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the
human person a God.[154]
Sin is loss or disturbance of relationship, and consequently,
sin always touches others, altering and affecting the world.[155]
Thus, when the network of human relationships is damaged from
the beginning, then every human enters a relational damaged
world.[156]
We can only be saved and become ourselves, when we engage in the
proper relationship.[157]
Since the relationship with creation has been damaged, only God
the Creator can save us.[158]
God takes the initiative and stretches out his hand to us, even
though we are the ones who initially cut ourselves from Him.[159]
Cardinal Ratzinger writes that only being loved is being saved,
and that only God’s love can purify damaged human love and
radically reestablish the network of alienated relationships.[160]
God’s love, his
sanctifying grace, is infused in our souls through the sacrament
of Baptism.[161]
The sacrament of Baptism is not received by unborn children nor
by many children who die in their infancy. What happens to the
souls of the unborn and infants who die without being baptized?[162]
Jesus instituted the sacraments as an ordinary means to
salvation.[163]
The sacrament of baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation
for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have
had the possibility of asking for the sacrament.[164]
However, God does not limit himself to these means.[165]
Jesus said of the Eucharist: “Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man you shall not have life” (John 6:53). However, this
does not mean that whoever dies without receiving the Eucharist
cannot be saved.[166]
On the contrary, Jesus died for all, and “God wants everybody to
be saved”(1 Tim. 2:4).[167]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds exactly this
position:
“As regards children
who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them
to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.
Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should
be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him
to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow
us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who
have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s
call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the
gift of holy Baptism.”[168]
Baptism can thus be understood as infusing the sanctifying grace
which is missing as a result of original sin.[169]
In his catechesis on original sin, John Paul the Great sums up
the concept by stating that as a result of original sin, man is
conceived and born without sanctifying grace.[170]
“It is precisely this ‘initial state’ of man linked to his
origin that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy”
(peccatum originale originatum).[171]
IV. Concupiscence and the Ethos of Redemption
a.
John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body
Pope John Paul the Great, in a series of weekly general audience
addresses from September 5, 1979, until October 31, 1984,
delivered a catechesis upon the human body, human sexuality and
marriage which has become known as the “Theology of the Body.”[172]
John Paul the Great organizes the discussion of mankind’s
history chronologically as follows: 1) Original man (mankind
before the fall), 2) Historical man (mankind after the fall),
and 3) Eschatological man (mankind after Christ’s second
coming).[173]
The section that follows attempts to show how original sin and
redemption relate to some of the issues discussed in John Paul’s
Theology of the Body.
b. Jesus’ statement regarding marriage before the fall (Mt
19:3; Mk 10:2)
“And
Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful
to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ (Jesus) answered, ‘Have
you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them
male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put
asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to
give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to
them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce
your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’”(Mt 19:3, cf.
also Mk 10:2).[174]
In this
passage, Jesus referred twice to the beginning. By the term
“beginning”, Jesus meant before the fall, before original sin.
Christ is revealing man to himself.[175]
John Paul seeks to reconstruct original human experiences in the
state of man’s original innocence in order to help us understand
who we are now.[176]
John Paul discusses original solitude, original unity, and
original nakedness.[177]
The following quote from Genesis: “And the man and his wife were
both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25), constitutes the
basis for the concept of original nakedness.[178]
Original
nakedness signifies the original good of God’s vision.[179]
It indicated a total defenselessness before the other, an
absence of barriers, because of a total trust in the sincerity
of their mutual exchange.[180]
The innocence of original nakedness demonstrates a total unity
between the spiritual and the physical.[181]
This seeing each other is not just an exterior perception, but
also has an interior participation in the vision of the Creator
himself: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it
was very good” (Gen 1:31).[182]
As St. Augustine wrote, “the deepest desire of the human heart
is to see another and be seen by that other’s loving look”.[183]
Before the fall, Adam and Eve also enjoyed seeing and being seen
by the loving look of God.
God created
mankind because He loved us and wanted us to share in his own
life.[184]
God initiates His own gift of self, and man is to receive this
gift, and give himself back to God.[185]
Man and woman image and recapitulate the gift of God in creation
by becoming a mutual gift to each other.[186]
c. Nuptial meaning of the body
The mutual giving of the other, as a gift and symbol of God’s
love, is what John Paul refers to as the “nuptial meaning” of
the body.[187]
The interior dimension of the gift of self has a corresponding
physical or exterior reality.[188]
The spiritual call to be a gift, to love as God loves, is
physically stamped in the body and its sexual complementarity.[189]
Sexual desire was originally experienced as the free desire to
make a sincere gift of themselves to the other, and thereby
loving as God loves.[190]
The conjugal union reflects from the beginning the great mystery
of Christ’s union with the Church, and John Paul describes
marriage as the “primordial sacrament”.[191]
John Paul will further argue that the marital embrace itself
constitutes an icon of the Trinity, in that it expresses the
love of a communion of persons, and through that love engenders
life.[192]
d. Sermon on the Mount (Mt
5: 27-28)
Life and the
carrying out of moral law of the Old Testament was given new
meaning in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus stated that he came
not to abolish, but to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17). Part of the
fulfillment related to a new ethos regarding the sin of
adultery. Jesus stated:
“You have heard that
it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’. But I say to you
that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5: 27-28).[193]
John Paul the
Great asks, “Are we to fear the severity of these words, or
rather have confidence in their salvific content, in their
power?”[194]
In the course of human history some have misinterpreted these
words, stripping them of their simplicity and depth.[195]
For example, Manichaeism saw the source of evil in matter, in
the body, and therefore condemned everything that is corporeal
in man, especially sexual relations.[196]
The words of Christ are not a condemnation or accusation of the
body.[197]
Rather, they call us to a self-critical examination, to see
whether or not our hearts succumb to the lust of the flesh.[198]
The judgment Christ’s words contain about desire, as an act of
lust of the flesh, affirms rather than negates the body as an
element which, together with his spirit, shares in his dignity
as a human person.[199]
Man is truly himself when his body and soul are united.[200]
Thus, the judgment on the lust of the flesh has a meaning
essentially different from the judgment presupposed by
Manichaean ontology.[201]
Christ’s words show that as a result of original sin, man has
lost the clear sense of the nuptial meaning of the body, and is
confused, in a way, with lust, and easily lets himself be
absorbed by lust.[202]
Lust was
condemned by Christ, but He defended the inviolable rights of
the conjugal union. In the conjugal union, the body, in its
masculinity and femininity, assumes the value of a sacramental
sign.[203]
Christ demanded detachment from the evil of lust, but he did not
condemn as evil the object of that desire, the woman who is
looked at lustfully. Christ’s words are an accusation, but also
an appeal to eliminate adultery committed in the heart.[204]
Lust is a devaluation, in that it intentionally deprives the
dignity which corresponds to the complete value of the woman’s
femininity.[205
Matthew 5:27-28 calls us to discover and reassert this value and
dignity.[206]
Upholding the
dignity of the human person is assigned as an ethos to every man
and woman.[207]
Ethos can be defined as the interior form, almost the soul, of
human morality.[208]
To reach ethos, it is not sufficient to stop at the surface of
human actions; it is necessary to penetrate inside.[209]
It is not possible to keep the Lord’s commandments by imitating
Christ from outside; there has to be a vital participation,
coming from the depths of our heart.[210]
Christ not only confirms the commandment prohibiting adultery,
but aims to strengthen it in the heart of the human person.
[211]
The new dimension of ethos is always connected with revelation
of the heart, and with the heart’s liberation from lust.[212]
The more lust
dominates the heart, John Paul asserts, the less the heart
experiences the nuptial meaning of the body.[213]
John Paul explains, “adultery in the heart is committed not only
because man looks lustfully at a woman who is not his
wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman this way.[214]
John Paul further explains that even if a man looks at his wife
lustfully, “he could likewise commit adultery in his heart”.[215]
Thus, the heart has become, in the words of John Paul “a
battlefield between love and lust”.[216]
In this battle, the human body in its masculinity and femininity
has almost lost the capacity of expressing love.[217]
John Paul writes “almost” because “the nuptial meaning of the
body has not been completely suffocated by concupiscence, only
habitually threatened”.[218]
Concupiscence involves the loss of the interior freedom of the
gift of self.[219]
Concupiscence is not capable of promoting the communion of
persons, and by itself, concupiscence appropriates rather than
unites.[220]
Unity with God
was broken by original sin. As John Paul writes, “This is truly
the key for interpreting reality... original sin, then, attempts
to abolish fatherhood”.[221]
Man denied God’s fatherhood, God’s benevolent gift of love in
creation.[222]
We cannot understand reality, what original man was, what
historical man is, and what eschatological man will be, without
understanding God’s fatherhood and its denial in original sin.[223]
This explains why “Christ, through the revelation of the mystery
of the Father and his love, fully reveals man to himself and
makes his supreme calling clear”.[224]
e. Ethos of Redemption of the Body
Clearly, the redemption of the body is the redemption of man.[225]
It is the redemption of the world, possessing a cosmic
dimension.[226]
Historical man lives in “status naturae lapsae simul ac
redemptae (the state of the fallen, but at the same time
redeemed nature)”.[227]
In the sermon of the Mount, Christ called us (historical man) to
overcome concupiscence, even in the most interior movements of
our hearts.[228]
John Paul says that man must draw from the mystery of the
redemption of the body for inspiration and strength to, on a
daily basis, “overcome the evil that is dormant in him under the
form of the threefold concupiscence”.[229]
The redemption of the body helps to discover all this good in
which man achieves victory over sin and concupiscence.[230]
Christ’s words permit us to discover and strengthen the bond
existing between the dignity of man and woman, and the nuptial
meaning of the body.[231]
Christ’s words also permit us to understand and put into
practice “the mature freedom of the gift” (of self).[232]
f.
Love
God’s gift of himself through Jesus Christ is the ultimate
expression of love. God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son, that whoever believes in him should... have eternal
life (John 3:16). Pope Benedict XVI writes that true love
consists of the union of both eros (ascending or worldly love)
and agape (descending or oblative love grounded in faith).[233]
Jesus was the incarnate and perfect union of both these forms of
love. Pope Benedict further states that anyone who wishes to
give love must also receive love as a gift.[234]
We must accept the gift of God’s love through Jesus, and in turn
give this love to others. Like Jesus, we can become a source
from which rivers of living waters flow.[235]
In order to become such a source, we must constantly drink anew
from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, who loved us to
the extreme, and from whose pierced Heart flows the love of God.[236]
God permitted
the evil of original sin in order to draw forth the greater good
of redemption.[237]
As St. Leo the Great wrote, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave
us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”[238]
As the Exultet sings, “O happy fault,...which gained for us so
great a redeemer!”[239]
[1].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition (United
States Catholic Conference, Washington, D.C., 2000),
n. 412.
[2].
Yarnold, Edward, The Theology of Original Sin
(Indiana, Fides Publishers, Inc., 1971), 33.
[3].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 33.
[4].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 37.
[5].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 33.
[6].
Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, (Boston, MA,
Pauline Books and Media, 1997), 30.
[7].
Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 30.
[8].
Genesis, 2:9-25; Yarnold, The Theology of Original
Sin, 34. Cf., Some theologians reject the notion
of preternatural gifts in original man. Koszarek S.S.J.,
Sister Clare, The Catechesis of Original Sin
(Collegeville, MN, St. John’s University Press 1969), 35.
[9].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 34.
[10].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
397.
[11].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 34.
[12].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 34.
[13].
Genesis, 3:23; Yarnold, The Theology of Original
Sin, 34.
[16].
Genesis, 3:16; Yarnold, The Theology of Original
Sin, 34.
[17].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, n. 400.
[18].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 35.
[19].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 35.
[20].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 35.
[21].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
404.
[22].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
404.
[23].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
404.
[24].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 35.
[25].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 35.
[26].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 36.
[27].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 36.
[28].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 36.
[29].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 38.
[30].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39. For a
more detailed examination of original sin in Wisdom
literature, See, Dubarle, Andre-Marie, The
Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin (New York, NY, Herder
and Herder, 1964), 88-123.
[31].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39.
[32].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39.
[33].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39.
[34].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39.
[35].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 40.
[36].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 39, 40.
[37].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 40.
[38].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 41.
[39].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 43.
[40].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 44, 45.
[41].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 44.
[42].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 44.
[43].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 44, 45.
[44].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 46.
[45].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 46.
[46].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 46.
[47].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 48, 23-24.
[48].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 48.
[49].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 49.
[50].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 48.
[51].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 48.
[52].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 49. There are
other variations. The New American Bible, for example,
translates the same phrase as: “Inasmuch as all sinned”.
For a more detailed discussion of Rom 5:12, See,
Trooster S.J., S., Evolution and the Doctrine of Original
Sin (New York, Newman Press, 1968), 75-88; For arguments
rejecting the notion that St. Paul believed sin and death
were inherited, and further discussing Rom 5:12, See,
Haag, Herbert, Is Original Sin in Scripture? (NY,
Sheed and Ward, Inc. 1969) 95-108; Also discussing Rom 5:12,
See, DeRosa, Peter, Christ and Original Sin
(Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1967) 98-102.
[53].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 49.
[54].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 49.
[55].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 50.
[56].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 50.
[57].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 50.
[58].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 50.
[59].
There are other variations. The New American Bible, for
example, translates the same phrase as: ”Inasmuch as all
sinned.”
[60].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
404.
[61].
Wiley, Tatha, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2002),
37-38. (For a review of this development, see Rondet, Henri,
Original Sin: the Patristic and Theological Background
(Shannon, Ireland: Ecclesia Press, 1972)).
[62].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 37.
[63].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 39. For a collection and summary
of the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria, See
generally, Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the
Early Fathers, vol. 1, (Collegeville, MN, Liturgical
Press, 1970), 176-188.
[64].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 40.
[65].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 39-41.
[66].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 41. For a collection and summary
of Ireneaus’ writings, See generally, Jurgens, The
Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 84-108.
[67].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 42.
[68].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 42.
[69].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 42.
[70].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 43.
[71].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 44.
[72].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 44.
[73].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 44.
[74].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 44.
[75].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 44. For a collection and summary
of Justin Martyr’s writings, See generally, Jurgens,
The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 50-64.
[76].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 45. For a collection and summary
of Tertullian’s writings, See generally, Jurgens,
The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 111-161.
[77].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 45.
[78].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 45.
[79].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46.
[80].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46.
[81].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46. (See Johannes Quasten,
Patrology, Vol. 2, p. 83 (Utrecht-Antrerp: Spectrum
Publishers, 1953), citing Origen’s “Homily on Leviticus”).
[82].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46. For a collection and summary
of Origen’s writings, See generally, Jurgens, The
Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 189-214.
[83].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46.
[84].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46.
[85].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 46.
[86].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[87].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[88].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[89].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[90].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[91].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[92].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[93].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[94].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[95].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[96].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 47.
[97].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 48.
[98].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 48.
[99].
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines (New York:
Harper and Row, 1978), 182.
[100].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 49.
[101].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 49. For a collection and summary
of St. Cyprian’s writings, See generally, Jurgens,
The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 216-239.
[102].
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene
Literature after Irenaius (Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum
Publishers, 1953), 378-379. An important source of
patristic texts is: Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 1,
The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Utrecht-Antwerp:
Spectrum Publishers, 1950); Quasten, Johannes, Patrology,
vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaius
(Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum Publishers, 1953); and Quasten,
Johannes, Patrology, vol. 3, The Golden Age of
Greek Patristic Literature: From Council of Nicaea to the
Council of Chalcedon (Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum
Publishers, 1960).
[103].
Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2, p. 379.
[104].
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of
the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1, The Emergence of
Catholic Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1971), 292.
[105].
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 354.
[106].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 51.
[107].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 51. For a collection and summary
of the writings of Ambrosiaster, See generally,
Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers,
vol. 2, (Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1979), 177-179.
[108].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 52.
[109].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 52.
[110].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 52.
[111].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 52.
[112].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 52.
[113].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 56. For a collection and summary
of the writings of St. Augustine, See generally,
Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers,
vol. 3, (Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1979), 56-178.
[114].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 56.
[115].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 59.
[116].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 59.
[117].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 59.
[118].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 60.
[119].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 62.
[120].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[121].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[122].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[123].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[124].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[125].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 63.
[126].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 64.
[127].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 64.
[128].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 64.
[129].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 64. Pope John Paul the Great
speaks of three forms of lust, referring to the concise
statement of 1 John 2:16-17: “For all that is in the world,
the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And
the world passes away, and the lust of it, but he who does
the will of God abides forever”. Pope John Paul II,
Theology of the Body, 108-109.
[130].
St. Augustine, Confessions, translation by Henry
Chadwick (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1998), 22-23.
[131].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 65.
[132].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 65.
[133].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 66. See
also, Tresmontant, Claude,
Introducción A La Teología Cristiana (Barcelona,
Editorial Herder, 1978), 681.
[134].
St. Augustine, Confessions, 3.
[135].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 66.
[136].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 66.
[137].
Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings, 66.
[138].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 66.
[139].
Internet Theological Dictionary,
www.theopedia.com. ; Latourelle,
Rene and Fisichella, Rino, Dictionary of Fundamental
Theology (New York, Crossroads Publishing Company,
1995).
[140].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 66. For a
complete text of the statement of the Council of Carthage on
original sine, See, Denziger, Henry, The Sources
of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy J. Defarrari form
the Thirteenth Edition of Henry Denziger’s Enchiridion
Symbolorum (Fitzwilliam, NH, Loreto Publications, 1955),
Can. 1-8, n. 101-108.
[141].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 66. For a
complete text of the statement of the Second Council of
Orange on original sin, See, Denziger, The Sources
of Catholic Dogma, n. 173b-200.
[142].
The original text of this section of Bull of Indiction of
the Council of Trent, June 17, 1546, Session V, the first
line of paragraph numbered 5, page 792, used the Latin word
reatum, which is sometimes translated into English as
“guilt”, which in the context of a discussion of original
sin, could distort the meaning of the original language of
the council. A more accurate translation of reatum
would be “a state or condition of being accused”. This is
more consistent with current Church theology on original sin
which holds that we do not inherit the guilt (or punishment)
of Adam and Eve, but rather that as a consequence of
original sin we are born in a fallen state, lacking
sanctifying grace. See also, Catechism of the
Catholic Church, Second Edition, n. 404. For a complete
text of the Decree on Original Sin from the Council of
Trent, See, Denziger, Henry, The Sources of
Catholic Dogma, n. 787-792.
[143].
Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, 68.
[144].
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Credo of the People of
God, n. 21.
[145].
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Credo of the People of
God, n. 22.
[146].
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Credo of the People of
God, n. 23.
[147].
Pope John Paul II, Statements made during Baptism of 19
infants at Mass in Sistene Chapel (L’Osservatore Romano,
Weekly Edition in English, January 22, 1997).
[148].
Pope John Paul II, Statements made during Baptism of 19
infants at Mass in Sistene Chapel (L’Osservatore Romano,
Weekly Edition in English, January 22, 1997).
[149].
Pope John Paul II, Statements made during Baptism of 19
infants at Mass in Sistene Chapel (L’Osservatore Romano,
Weekly Edition in English, January 22, 1997).
[150].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, n. 202.
[151].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, (Michigan, Wm.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 72.
[152].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 72.
[153].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 72.
[154].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 73.
[155].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 73.
[156].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 73.
[157].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 73.
[158].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 74.
[159].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 74.
[160].
Ratzinger, In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding
of th Story of Creation and the Fall, 74.
[161].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
1265, 1266.
[162].
The history and development of the answer to this question
alone could be the topic of a lengthy book. I shall restrict
myself to a discussion of current Church teaching on this
topic.
[163].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
1129.
[164].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
1257. See also, Pope Paul VI, Second Vatican
Council, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium,
11/21/64, n. 14.
[165].
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, Commentary on Limbo and the
Unbaptized, (www.zenit.org, 1/24/06).
[166].
Pope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium,
n. 16.
[167].
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, Commentary on Limbo and the
Unbaptized, (www.zenit.org, 1/24/06).
[168].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
1261.
[169].
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Credo of the People of
God, n. 23.
[clxx].
Pope John Paul II, Catechesis on Original Sin, (L’Osservatore
Romano, weekly public audiences as published in the English
edition, 9/8 - 10/8, 1986), § V, n. 5.
[171].
Pope John Paul II, Catechesis on Original Sin, (L’Osservatore
Romano, weekly public audiences as published in the English
edition, 9/8 - 10/8, 1986), § V, n. 5.
[172].
See, John Paul II, Theology of the Body.
[173].
See, John Paul II, Theology of the Body, Table
of Contents.
[174].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 25.
[175].
John Paul II, Letter to the Families. (Boston, MA,
Pauline Books and Media, 1994), paragraph number 19.
[176].
West, Christopher, Theology of the Body Explained
(Boston, Ma, Pauline Books and Media, 2003), 60.
[177].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 56.
[178].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 51-52.
[179].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 57.
[180].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 94.
[181].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 57.
[182].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 57.
[183].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 93, citing St.
Augustine, Sermon 69, c. 2,3.
[184].
Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition, n. 293.
[185].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 96.
[186].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 96.
[187].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 97.
[188].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 97.
[189].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 98.
[190].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 64.
[191].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 76. West,
Theology of the Body Explained, 114-115.
[192].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 45-48; see also
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 120, and John
Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem
(Boston, MA, Pauline Books & Media, 1988), no. 18, 8. John
Paul II goes on to say: ...”In that sign (sacramental sign
of marriage), through the language of the body, man and
woman encounter the great mystery. This is in order to
transfer the light of that mystery- the light of truth and
beauty, expressed in liturgical language- to the language of
the body, that is, to the language of the practice of love,
fidelity, and conjugal honesty, to the ethos rooted in the
redemption of the body (cf. Rom 8:23). In this way,
conjugal life becomes in a certain sense liturgical”
(emphasis added). John Paul II, Theology of the Body,
380.
[193].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 103; According to
ancient translations, the text is “...has already made her
an adulteress in his heart”, a formula which John Paul
believes is more exact. John Paul II, Theology of the
Body, 105.
[194].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 159.
[195].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 161.
[196].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 161.
[197].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 162.
[198].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 162.
[199].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163.
[200].
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas
Est, December 25, 2005, § 5.
[201].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163.
[202].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163.
[203].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163.
[204].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 164.
[205].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 165.
[206].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 165.
[207].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 346.
[208].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 104.
[209].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 105.
[210].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
2842.
[211].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 158.
[212].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 158.
[213].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 126.
[214].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 157.
[215].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 157.
[216].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 126.
[217].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 126.
[218].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 126.
[219].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 127.
[220].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 127.
[221].
John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New
York, NY, Knopf, 1994), 228.
[222].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 141.
[223].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 141.
[224].
West, Theology of the Body Explained, 141, quoting
Gaudium et spes, § 22)
[225].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 299-300.
[226].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 300.
[227].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 164.
[228.
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 301.
[229].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 301. See
also, endnote 129, for a statement by John Paul II
regarding the three forms of lust.
[230].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 301.
[231].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 301.
[232].
John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 302.
[233].
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas
Est, § 7.
[234].
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas
Est, § 7.
[235].
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas
Est, § 7.
[236].
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas
Est, § 7, citing John 19:34.
[237].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
412.
[238].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
412, citing St. Leo the Great, Sermon 73, 4: PL54,
396.
[239].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, n.
412, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,
III, 1,3, ad 3; others translate this section of the
Summa as follows: “Hence, too, in the blessing of the
Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such
and so great a Redeemer!"
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
|
