Human Nature Fallen? Human Nature Evil?

[jswranch]

All,

I need an authoritative (pope, council, synod) that human nature did not become bad or evil after the fall.

I had a friendly debate with another Catholic who said that human nature is sinful or it is to sin, ie we sin because it is our nature to do so.

I disageed and told him Rome had spoken, the issue was settled. However, I do not have a source to back up my claim.

Thanks,
John

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1288346' date='Jun 4 2007, 07:51 PM']All,

I need an authoritative (pope, council, synod) that human nature did not become bad or evil after the fall.

I had a friendly debate with another Catholic who said that human nature is sinful or it is to sin, ie we sin because it is our nature to do so.

I disageed and told him Rome had spoken, the issue was settled. However, I do not have a source to back up my claim.

Thanks,
John[/quote]

As far as I understand, your friend is correct. One of the outcomes of the Fall is Original Sin, i.e. the warping of human nature such that we incline toward sin. This tendency is known as [i]concupiscence[/i]. From the Catechism:

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. 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. Constituted 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."

399
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

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. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay." Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground," for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

416
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin."

418
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin (This inclination is called "concupiscence.").

419
"We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation' and that it is . . . ‘proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

[jswranch]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1288661' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:51 AM']As far as I understand, your friend is correct. One of the outcomes of the Fall is Original Sin, i.e. the warping of human nature such that we incline toward sin. This tendency is known as [i]concupiscence[/i]. From the Catechism:[/quote]

Whoa, there is a huge difference between a change in tendency or inclination to sin and a change in nature. Man's nature stayed the same, yet his ability and will came out of his control (among other losses).

If a divine power creates something good, only a divine power can undo that good and make such a thing evil. If God made us (our nature) good, who, having a divine power, went back and reversed the work of such good action.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1288725' date='Jun 5 2007, 12:37 PM']Whoa, there is a huge difference between a change in tendency or inclination to sin and a change in nature. Man's nature stayed the same, yet his ability and will came out of his control (among other losses).

If a divine power creates something good, only a divine power can undo that good and make such a thing evil. If God made us (our nature) good, who, having a divine power, went back and reversed the work of such good action.[/quote]

I misinterpreted your question, then.

What I think we're left with is this: all that God made, including humanity, is good; however, as a result of the Fall, by nature we are sinful. Now, whether that means we're good people who do bad things, or whether we're bad, I'll leave to those more learned than myself to address. What I will say with Paul is,

[i]15
What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.
16
Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good.
17
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18
For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.
19
For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.
20
Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21
So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand.
22
For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,
23
but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
24
Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?
25
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.[/i]

(Rm. 7:15-25)

[Quietfire]

By nature we are good.

[jswranch]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1288765' date='Jun 5 2007, 01:49 PM']I misinterpreted your question, then.

What I think we're left with is this: all that God made, including humanity, is good; however, as a result of the Fall, by nature we are sinful. Now, whether that means we're good people who do bad things, or whether we're bad, I'll leave to those more learned than myself to address. What I will say with Paul is...[/quote]
Yes, the good people vs. bad things is the issue. Being bad= evil nature. This is the conclusion I am debating against.



[quote name='Quietfire' post='1289545' date='Jun 6 2007, 02:31 PM']By nature we are good.[/quote]
Agreed, but I need an authoritative source to back it up.

[Quietfire]

God.

[Quietfire]

Sorry,
should be more forthcoming.

God said, and that's that.

Genesis.

[Innocent]

This is quite an interesting question. If I get you right, you're saying that though we have acquired a tendency to sin, our nature has not become evil. Wow, I've never thought so deeply about this matter, but after reading your post, I decided to read up on this a bit.

From the [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#I%20Believe%20in%20God%20the%20Father"][color="#FF0000"][i][b]Compendium of the CCC[/b][/i][/color]: (Section 2: Chapter 1: [part 5] The Fall)[/url]

[quote][b]76. What is original sin?[/b]

404
419

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

[b]77. What other consequences derive from original sin?[/b]

405-409
418

In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.[/quote]

I see that it says ".. without being totally corrupted, ...." It does not say that human nature became evil.



Article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm"][color="#8B0000"][i]Original Sin[/i][/color] in the [color="#2E8B57"][b]1911 Catholic Encyclopedia:[/b][/color][/url]

[quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#IV"][color="#FF0000"][b]IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION[/b][/color][/url]

On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism.[/quote]

I suppose that we can take this to implicitly mean that the idea that human nature is evil is contradictory to Catholic theology.

But a little further, this same article deals with this subject in a more explicit manner:


[quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#V"][color="#FF0000"][b]V. ORIGINAL SIN IN FACE OF THE OBJECTIONS FROM REASON[/b][/color][/url]

....
....
....
....
....
(2) It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, [i][b]the very substance of man changed into evil.[/b][/i]

But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].[/quote]

(emphasis added)

From the emphasised part of Luther's theory that Catholic theology denies, couldn't it be concluded that Catholic theology rejects the notion that human nature has become evil?

I know, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the same as the teaching of a Pope, synod, or Council, but it gives pointers for future research on these lines.

Further, in [url="http://www.gale.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=NCE&type=1&id=113827&cf=null"][i]The New Catholic Encyclopedia[/i], Second Edition (2003)[/url],

from the article: [b]Nature [/b][i][b](in theology)[/b][/i]

[quote][i]States of Nature.[/i] Even though, historically, nature
never existed without the supernatural elevation, nature
connotes a perfection complete in itself and hence could
exist in a purely natural state. Theologians distinguish
five different possible states of nature: (1) PURE NATURE,
with no PRETERNATURAL or supernatural elevation; (2)
integral nature, with preternatural endowments; (3) elevated
nature (the original state of man prior to the Fall),
with preternatural and supernatural gifts; (4) fallen unredeemed
nature, incapable of attaining its end because of
sin; (5) redeemed nature, superabundantly restored to its
original elevated state by the REDEMPTION of Jesus
Christ. Even though the last is the only actual state of
human nature known, there would seem to be no intrinsic
impossibility for the actual existence of the other states.
In fact, some theologians see a certain appropriate completeness
of the universe in positing the actual existence
of these other states of nature on planets other than the
earth.

[b]God’s Glory.[/b] ‘‘God saw that all He had made was
very good’’ (Gn 1.31). Only the whole of God’s creation
contains the divinely intended manifestation of His goodness
[see GLORY OF GOD (END OF CREATION)]. Every area
of human endeavor contributes its proper insight into the
glory of God discovered in nature.[/quote]


Thanks for asking this question Jswranch! I learned something through you.

Yours in Christ,
Innocent

Edited June 14, 2007 by Innocent