ORIGINAL SIN
By
George J. Desnoyers
In this consideration of the
doctrine of original sin (OS), I will for the most part be limiting my treatment
to the Catholic ideas surrounding the doctrine of OS, and its related topic, the
state of unbaptized infants. The Catholic Church downplays the question of
infants, pretty much limiting itself to saying that it is impossible to be sure
of the fate of infants who die without baptism, that we entrust them to the
mercy of God, that there is some reason in the words of Jesus to be hopeful
concerning their fate, and that the uncertainty regarding unbaptized infants is
reason to baptize them (CCC 1261). However, the literature of Christian
theology (including the CCC) reflects an association between the state of
infants and the doctrine of original sin, suggesting that an examination of the
latter is incomplete without some consideration of the former.
Protestants hold many different views on OS. Some Protestants hold
views very similar to those of the Catholic Church, but with this difference.
The Catholic Church has a unique belief regarding the role of grace imparted
through the sacrament of baptism. So, for many Catholics, assurance in
the safety of infants depends on whether they’ve been baptized. This would not
be the case for nearly all Protestants. In discussing OS with Protestants I
would not have to emphasize, when considering the state of infants, that I was
considering unbaptized infants only. For Protestants, the implications
of a sinful state of any and all infants poses a challenge to the idea of OS.
For Catholics, the challenge is posed only by the implications of the sinful
state of unbaptized infants. Of course both Protestants and Catholics
can dismiss all such concerns by adopting the “divine wink theory,” the theory
that God lets all deceased infants into heaven with a wink. I’m not going to
address that theory. How could I address such a theory? But I do find
the divine wink theory cute, and a pretty good commentary on the state of some
Christian theology. Likewise with the theory that get infants into heaven on
the basis of a supposed real - however inchoate - desire for baptism.
That theory is at least several decades old. [I first heard it from a nun at my
Catholic high school back in the 1950s.]
This post will comment on some basic ideas involving OS doctrine, and
discuss some past and present RCC teaching on the subject. Also, it will
address some related sub-topics, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the
virginity of Mary, and an attitude frequently exhibited by believers in original
sin when they are engaged in discussions about it.
The doctrine of original sin (OS) appeared in embryonic forms before
Augustine, but I’m going to skip the embryonic forms. The Catholic Church
officially adopted many ideas of Augustine on OS when it condemned the teachings
of Pelagius. Most of those ideas persisted for well over a thousand years,
surviving Trent, and there
hasn’t been a lot of change even to the present day. What has changed,
and much for the better, is the Church’s language and emphasis. [More on
those changes below.]
At the outset, let me state my own strong personal belief that all
infants are safe, baptized and unbaptized. Also, there is no limbo,
so it’s really good that the Catholic Church has never officially declared that
there is one. Suffice it to say that, when the term “limbo” was first used (by
Pelagius, although the RCC has sometimes said otherwise), the word didn’t refer
to a place of eternal existence – like heaven and hell, but was simply a name
used for the unknown fate of infants. If the word is going to be used, it
should be used that way.
I wish that more people would be able to know, just from common sense
and their instinct for justice, that infants are safe. It simply should be
plain to all that, if you haven’t personally sinned, then you are not personally
guilty of sin, and cannot be punished for sin. But there has been so much
horribly erroneous teaching on the subject, over such a long period of time,
that common sense and an instinct for justice don’t always rule. For those who
have long been subjected to the teaching that deceased infants who had not been
baptized may not make it into heaven, consider these Scriptural texts
that are indicative of Jesus’ great love of children: Mt. 18:1-6,10, Mt.
19:13-15 and Mk. 10:13-16, and Mark 9:36-37. Many people have been comforted by
those words. It seems inconceivable to most readers that Jesus could have
spoken them unless all deceased infants, baptized and unbaptized, were certain
to be admitted into heaven.
In considering original sin and the state of infants, I follow the
customary practice of speaking primarily of young infants. The reason I
say "young infants" is because at least one Biblical word often
translated as "infant" can mean "suckling." It would be theoretically possible
for a five-year-old child to have sinned and still be nursing. When I make
statements about "infants" (or "young infants"), I am referring to unbaptized
infants less than one year old. Or, in case there are some really
precocious infants out there, it should be understood that I am only referring
to unbaptized infants too young to have been able to personally sin, infants at
least very close to the way infants are at the time of birth. I am trying to
present the toughest possible case to the RCC’s theologians who still
insist on a possibility that unbaptized infants do not make it into heaven.
There are some other mighty challenges to the idea of OS, like the one offered
by unbaptized people born with serious mental defects. But usually it is the
state of young unbaptized infants that is considered the toughest case for
Catholics, and the case that should be considered in discussions of OS.
A real fundamental idea in scripture is that a person is guilty of, and
punished for, his/her own sin, and not his/her parents’ sins (Ezekiel
18:19-20). [Read all of Ezek. 18 to see the context, and remember the clarity
of vv. 19-20 later on when we look (in the second post) at the supposed “proof
texts” for OS.]
That we do not believe that people are guilty of their parents’ sins
should be obvious from the way we treat each other. I cannot remember ever
being punished for my parents’ sins, or being made to feel guilt on account of
them. On the rare occasions when that kind of thing happens, people who witness
it are usually quick to protest the injustice. If I am not guilty of my
parents’ sins, and their parents’ sins, why on earth would I be guilty of the
sins of Adam and Eve?
Of course there is truth in the teaching that God sometimes deals with
people in groups. The OT is loaded with evidence of that. But it also true
that the Bible teaches individual responsibility, and the preeminence of love
and justice. When God was “punishing” a group, it should be understood that
some members of that group were guilty and truly being punished. Individuals
within the group who were innocent of the sins being punished were not
themselves being punished, but were suffering a temporal consequence of
the sin of others.
[There are occasions, according to reason and scripture, when a person
can be guilty of the sins of another. When a person willfully, or with
gross negligence, encourages another person to commit a sin, then the first
person can reasonably be charged with the second person’s offense (see, e.g.,
Mt. 18:6). But consideration of this kind of responsibility and guilt doesn’t
belong in a discussion of OS.]
It is necessary to address something that is sometimes offered as a
“proof” of original sin, the fact that infants do die. The argument runs: the
wages of sin is death; infants die; therefore infants collect the wages of sin
and must be sinners. The death of infants is not a proof that they are
sinners. It is a proof that infants are mortal. An infant’s death could
be a temporal consequence of the sin of others. In fact, the
effects of sin sometimes can be felt generation after generation. Children
do often suffer for the sins of their parents and ancestors. But the
suffering and death of an infant cannot be punishment of the infant
for any sin or guilt of the infant. The infant is pure and innocent. The
infant hasn’t committed any personal sins, and carries neither the sin nor the
guilt of the parent or ancestors. Note that I am not denying that the wages of
sin is death. People do sin, and they collect the wages of sin, death. But,
until a person sins, that person’s death cannot be the wages of his/her
sin.
Another idea (actually, its more an attitude) that is necessary to
address is the nuts and bolts view of humanity - the idea that we are like nuts
and bolts, and God is the Great Forger who casts us for his own purposes and can
do with us whatever He/She likes. The reason this theory is sometimes brought
into the discussion of OS is purportedly to bring home to us that there is a
great gulf between humans and God, and that the humans’ view (the nuts’ and
bolts’ view) of sin and justice is not what is important, but only God’s (the
Forger’s). The idea is that we should scrap our limited and faulty human ideas
about sin and justice. We have no more right to question God regarding the
fairness of OS than nuts and bolts have to question their maker (or clay to
question the potter, etc.). We should not question the idea that God might
punish (or withhold the blessing of heaven from) unbaptized infants who never
personally sinned, but who carried in some mysterious way the sin and/or guilt
of Adam and Eve.
[For those who wonder why theologians historically considered Adam’s
sin much more often than Eve’s, it was because until the nineteenth century the
seeds of the human race were believed to be contained only within the male.
Theologians felt it was Adam’s sin that was passed on in conception, not Eve’s.
Nowadays the RCC will admit that Augustine and Aquinas were wrong about the seed
being only in the male (although the 1994 CCC continues a past error along this
line – more below), but the Church still insists that they were right on OS.]
Basically, the nuts and bolt analogy (or any other similar analogy) is
intended to convince us to accept original sin as a mystery divinely revealed,
something we should not expect, or attempt, to thoroughly understand with our
limited abilities. The gulf between God and ourselves is huge, and God can
charge us with sin and do with us as He/She sees fit.
I would agree that there is a large gulf between the nuts and bolts,
and their maker. And I would agree that the nuts and bolts have absolutely no
complaint when their maker casts them back into the fire, for whatever reason or
defect - they don't fit exactly right, they just don’t suit his/her purposes
anymore, they have a black stain, et cetera. But the analogy is defective. In
the case of nuts and bolts being thrown back into the fire, justice is not being
violated. Justice is not even involved. The nuts and bolts are not being
punished for their sins, or their maker’s sins. Their being thrown into the
fire may be a consequence of something else (i.e., there may be a reason for
it), but it is not a punishment, and it has nothing to do with
justice.
Well, what about the gulf between God and man? Isn’t it huge? The
answer to that isn’t so simple. We recognize two qualities in God that
are unusual in the same being, transcendence and immanence. In terms of God’s
transcendence, the gulf between God and man is huge, in fact very far
greater than even the gulf between the maker of nuts and bolts, and the nuts and
bolts themselves. The gulf is infinitely greater than the gulf between
the highest king or queen and lowest subject. When considering God’s
transcendence, God is viewed as totally outside the universe, but perhaps
holding the entire universe with great ease in one hand. In God’s
transcendence, God does not take questions about original sin and His/Her
treatment of infants.
In terms of the immanence of God, which is very real, the analogy of
the nuts and bolts and their maker is totally inadequate. The immanence of God
is His/Her nearness, His/Her permeating the universe, His/Her being all around
us and even in us. We feel God’s nearness. In terms of immanence, there is
not a great gulf between God and humans. Like the nut-maker designed and
made the nut, God did design us and make us. Other than that, the relationships
are not very analogous. Doesn’t the immanent God also infinitely love us, watch
over us, have concern about us every moment, desire only good for us, inspire us
through the Holy Spirit, appoint guardian angels to help us, maintain personal
relationships with us – speaking and listening to us, and always act toward us
fairly and justly? Do you want to maintain, along with the Catholic Church,
even the possibility that this kind of God would slam shut the door of
heaven to unbaptized infants who died before they personally sinned? Where
would they go after the door of heaven were slammed shut, to hell or purgatory?
Would the immanent God treat infants who never personally sinned worse than
He/She treats people who sinned and then repented?
Infants are not in need of a savior because they are already
safe in Jesus. Jesus loves them. Remember those texts cited above. God
would not treat infants who never sinned worse (eternally) than He/She
treats those who sinned and repented. Sometimes the infants do suffer
temporally worse things than sinners, even sinners who don’t repent. But
suffering the temporal consequences of the sins of others, or of the state of
the world, or of the laws of nature, is not -for young infants -
punishment.
As I said above, the idea of original sin became well-defined in the
time of Augustine. That happened when Augustine undertook to answer what he
perceived to be erroneous teaching by Pelagius on the subject of free will. Why
was original sin involved? Basically, because both men felt that a
consideration of the natural state of people, including all their natural
tendencies - even if not fully developed, was important to determining whether
free will existed. Pelagius’ side of the debate is not well known because the
Church systematically destroyed his writings, just as it did those of most
heretics over several centuries. Nearly all of what is known of Pelagius’
arguments is known through the writings of Augustine. We will probably never
know the extent to which Augustine reconstructed Pelagius’ arguments out of
straw before knocking them down.
What were the basic ideas of Augustine related to original sin that
were incorporated into official Church doctrines?
First, Augustine believed in an idea that was already ancient in his
day, the idea that sex, and its results, were dirty. Several dozen Biblical
texts could be cited to show conclusively that a belief in the dirtiness of sex
was shared by the Bible’s authors. In the NT, even Mary was supposedly in need
of purification on account of giving birth to Jesus, despite it being a
miraculous virginal birth of the Son of God. Concerning Augustine, it is
generally recognized that he had a large amount of baggage from his life prior
to conversion that made him quite extreme in his belief in the dirtiness of
sex. After his conversion, Augustine rebelled completely against his former
associates, the Manicheans. They were a peculiar sub-group of Gnostics.
Manicheans taught that all forms of sex were okay as long as a child wasn’t
conceived. Conceiving a child would result in a spiritual being that would be
imprisoned in a physical body. That was bad because the most important goal of
the living was to become more of a spiritual being, one freer and freer of the
influence of matter. Most Gnostics differed from the Manicheans by teaching
that sex was dirty to begin with, whether or not there was a conception, and it
was all the more dirty if you enjoyed it. It was this form of Gnosticism that
heavily influenced Augustine following his conversion, with enormous effects on
the Church and its faithful up to the present day. For one thing, from the time
of Augustine up to the twentieth century the Church taught that the purpose of
sex is procreation, and not pleasure.
Second, Augustine saw a connection between sex and the lapse. He was
far from alone in that belief. Many people argue, from Gen. 3:7, that the lapse
involved a sexual sin. Historically, biting the apple has very often been taken
as a metaphor, as can be seen in many works of art. Not only did the fall
likely involve a sexual sin, but Augustine also believed that it resulted in a
weakening of the will that made men unable to control the lower appetites the
way Adam was able to in his pre-fallen condition. The weakening of the ability
of the will and intellect to control the lower (animal) passions is what
theologians are referring to when they speak of concupiscence resulting from the
fall.
Third, Augustine strongly believed that original sin, with all its
effects (like the weakened will and intellect, guilt, and debt of punishment),
was passed down through the sex act. So, for Augustine, it was extremely
important that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and even afterward. For
Augustine, the virgin birth was the guarantee that Jesus was born without OS.
The idea that OS is passed down through the sex act is also the reason why the
Catholic Church still maintains that Mary always remained a
virgin. The Church could never accept the idea that sin passed from Mary to
anyone else, which would supposedly be the case if she ever participated in a
sex act that resulted in conception. Like Jerome, who wrote a treatise, “The
Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary,”
Augustine opposed Helvidius' position rejecting the concept of Mary’s perpetual
virginity and understanding the Biblical "brethren" of Jesus to be Mary’s
biological children.
Today, people speak of virginity as physical, psychological, spiritual,
or even “born again.” But such was not always the case; there was a time when
virginity was physical, period. When Church Fathers came up with the idea of
Mary’s perpetual virginity, the idea referred to MORE than Mary’s never having
had intercourse with Joseph or anyone else. For the Church Fathers, as was the
case in many cultures, a virgin was a woman whose hymen was intact, not torn or
damaged (noticeably stretched). This definition was applied in the Church for
centuries.
There are many old writings, some by Church Fathers, in which
disagreement is expressed with the above definition of virgin, in some cases for
the very same reasons that physicians would give today. But the definition made
sense to most folk, and the Church accepted it. It had the important benefit of
making it easy for priests or others to determine whether a woman was a virgin
(in some places a requirement for marriage). Priests did not do the
inspections, but they sometimes caused them to be performed. [By the way, the
Church determined a person’s gender by whether male genitalia were present.]
Today the idea that a virgin is a woman whose hymen is intact and
undamaged is universally deemed silly. Some women were born without a hymen.
And it’s nearly universally accepted both that an intact and undamaged hymen is
no guarantee that a woman has not had sexual relations, and that a torn or
damaged hymen is no guarantee that she has.
Regarding Mary, however, the official position of the RCC has continued
to be that, while Jesus’ birth was a normal one, Mary’s hymen was miraculously
preserved intact during and after the birth of Christ. Without that miracle,
Mary could not have been called or deemed a perpetual virgin (the most common
expression throughout history has been “ever virgin”) by the Church’s standard.
Interestingly on this point, in the Gospel of James (ca 150 AD),
sometimes called the Infancy Gospel of James or Protoevangelium of James, there
is an account of an inspection of Mary immediately following the birth of
Jesus. After the midwife claims that a miraculous birth has occurred, Salome
says, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her,
I will not believe that a virgin has given birth.” (v. 19:19) Chapter 20 of the
Gospel of James then reports: the positioning of Mary (vv. 1-2), the inspection
carried out by Salome via insertion of a finger, and the resulting burning up of
Salome’s hand (vv. 2-3), the regret of Salome for having doubted the virgin
birth and having tested the living God, and Salome’s prayer asking for
forgiveness (vv. 3-7), an angel’s instruction to Salome to pick up Jesus in
order to receive salvation and joy from him (vv. 8-9), Salome’s lifting up of
Jesus, worship of him, and her recognition of him as “born a king to Israel” (v.
10), the healing of Salome and her leaving the cave justified (v. 11), and a
sudden instruction to Salome, “do not proclaim what a miracle you have seen
until the child comes to Jerusalem." (v. 12)
If Jesus was protected from original sin only by His virgin birth, it
is natural to ask what it was that protected Mary. The Immaculate Conception of
Mary (her being conceived free of original sin) had already been proposed at the
time of Augustine. Theologians discussed the concept a lot through several
centuries. But the doctrine was only officially declared infallibly in 1854.
The long holdup was due to its apparent denial of the Augustinian position that
original sin was passed on through the sex act leading to conception. Mary’s
birth was not a virgin birth. The Church, however, to satisfy the
nineteenth century’s Augustinian faction, stressed that the Immaculate
Conception was a very special act of grace on the part of God, a miraculous
intervention into the normal rule of things. From her conception, Mary was kept
free of original sin by a special grant of prevenient grace, i.e., grace made
possible by the sacrifice of Christ but applied to Mary in advance of Jesus’
sacrifice on the cross because of her very special role as mother of the divine
Jesus.
The Church has never said that
original sin is not normally passed down through the act of sex (it does now
downplay talk about the sex act – more below). But is has said that it didn't
happen in the case of Mary. It isn’t only original sin that never touched
Mary. The Church also teaches that she never personally sinned. Luke
1:46-47 says, “And Mary said, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Saviour.’” One might wonder about those two verses and ask,
“Why did she ever need a savior, since one’s need for a savior is usually
thought to be due to one’s sin? The Catholic Church has an answer for that
question. It says Mary did need a savior. Her salvation came from the
application of the prevenient grace which was granted her at the time of her
Immaculate Conception. Remember, although granted to Mary ahead of time, the
Catholic Church’s position is that the prevenient grace applied to Mary was made
possible through the [later] sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Jesus was the
savior Mary needed.
Many of the Church’s past teachings about sex are absolutely amazing to
modern ears. Sex today is not considered so dirty and sinful. There is no
connection at all between sex and any “original sin” with which all people are
born. First, sex is a God-given mechanism for procreation, and the pleasure
derived from it is nature's (and God's) way of seeing that it is successful.
Both sex used for procreation, and sex used pleasure, may properly be considered
blessings from God. Of course the pleasure of sex, and even its use in
procreation, can present people with temptations and opportunities to sin. But
the same is true of very many other blessed gifts from God. Any connections
theologians have made between sex and original sin are wrong. The second, and
more important, reason there is no connection between sex and original sin is
that there is no original sin (unless you limit it to Adam and Eve). C.
Dennis McKinsey is probably close to the truth when he says (The Encyclopedia
of Biblical Errancy, Prometheus Books, 1995, page 190) that the doctrine of
original sin is one of the most preposterous concepts ever generated by the mind
of man.” People become sinners when they sin personally. They are not
born carrying the sin, guilt, or debt of their parents, of their ancestors, or
of Adam and Eve.
Modern theologians and preachers who accept the doctrine of original
sin usually try to argue on its behalf without all the sexual baloney of
Augustine (and the theologians of the thousand-plus years after him). They find
much of that stuff embarrassing. They generally prefer simply to argue for OS
as something supernaturally revealed in scripture, and not something that can be
understood from reason (CCC 404). But they do usually maintain the following:
(1) that infants are born with a fallen nature, a nature that, without the
intervention of God’s grace in baptism and/or at Calvary, would certainly lead
them into actual personal sin and hell; (2) that the fall did result in the
weakening of the human will and intellect, with a resulting inability to
suppress or control the lower (animal) instincts; and (3) that all people are
born sharing in the sin and guilt of Adam.
Regarding those three points, there seems to be a greater variety of
sub-views on the third point than on the first two. For one important example,
the Catholic Church says that, although we all share in original sin, “original
sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s
descendants.” (CCC 405) Also, the Church maintains that “original sin is called
‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’
– a state and not an act.” (CCC 404) Both of those teachings are consistent with
the Catholic Church's acceptance of Thomas Aquinas's belief that original sin is
primarily a deprivation of grace. That last idea, that original sin is only
called “sin” in an analogical sense, is extremely important, and could stand
further development, development that might bring many of original sin’s
believers and unbelievers together.
The Catholic Church also is much more careful today in teaching about
the transmission of original sin than it had been in the past. The Church says
original sin “is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind”
(CCC 404). However, the Church no longer talks specifically about the part
played by the act of intercourse itself, but only mentions that the doctrine of
original sin has a history that includes more thorough treatments. At one time
there was a lot of emphasis on the act of sex. In fact, when the Church
taught that the pleasure derived from sex was sinful, it flirted with the idea
that sex performed by a couple solely out of the duty to procreate – and without
any pleasure at all – might be able to produce a conception without the passing
on of original sin.
One past mistake that the Catholic Church continues to make is to focus
the transmission of original sin on Adam, without Eve (CCC 402, 403, 404). It’s
a mistake that is also continued by other Christian churches, because they
perceive Scriptural encouragement for it. As mentioned above, the Bible’s
authors believed that the seed was contained only within the male. We now know
that the seed of the human race was in Adam and Eve together, and not in either
one alone. It is time to teach correctly concerning this, and to point out that
the Bible’s authors were short on facts.
In language used, the Church’s present-day teachings on OS are a huge
improvement over its teachings of past centuries, particularly with regard to
the role of sex, and the nature of original sin’s effects on individuals.
(People usually don’t talk about a “black stain” anymore.) However, the very
carefully drafted language comes short of outright rejection of the older
ideas. The Church doesn’t seem to acknowledge any need to admit to some bad
teaching in the past before moving on to superior teaching. Rather, the Church
seems to rely people’s forgetteries (instead of memories), and on historians to
ignore large areas of turf they would normally find exciting. With most folk,
the Church may be successful in moving on to improved teaching without any clear
denunciation of past mistakes. Memories are short. But historians are
another matter. There may forever be historians calling on the Church to admit
that some of its past teachings were erroneous. The special difficulty for the
Church is that it must do so while somehow preserving its teaching that the
Church is specially and supernaturally gifted by God in its ability to determine
truth. Not an easy task!
If there is no original sin, when do people become sinners? And
when do they become sinners worthy and capable of eternal punishment? As I said
above, people become sinners when they sin personally. There can be sins that
are not willful, but pre-birth and young infants are not capable of committing
them. Young Infants are both pure and innocent. Even when children do acquire
an ability to commit sins that are not willful, those sins are not deserving of
eternal punishment, but the children may experience a temporal result of
unwillful sin that is sometimes thought of as a temporal punishment.
Eternal punishment is not deserved until a willful sin is committed. And it is
very debatable whether every willful sin merits eternal punishment. My own
belief is that some don't, but don’t ask me to prove it from the Bible. I
have noticed that many of the “mortal sins” of the 1950s are venial sins
today. Maybe the time is coming when it will require a doctorate in moral
theology to commit a mortal sin.
Modified 04/14/08