The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" tells us that God created mankind
to be His friends
[CCC #374]. Not out of need for friendship,
but out of overflowing love and benevolence. When a (wo)man is in a state
of friendship with God, (s)he is said to "have sanctifying grace";
which above all is the indwelling of Holy Spirit, an intimate participation
and sharing in the inner Trinitarian life of
God [CCC #375]. So our first ancestors, though
primitive in culture and general development were holy beings, simple-minded
and simple-hearted.
They were also supernatural beings, endowed with "preternatural graces"
beyond the capabilities flowing from their physiology [CCC
#377]. These were somewhat akin to what we now think of as "paranormal
powers" (telepathy etc.) They were not intrinsic to what it meant to be
human. Rather, they made our first, simple, ancestors "super-human". These
graces
were not the same thing as "sanctifying grace" (which is friendship with
God: a status or condition of being, not a power or ability). Neither did
they necessarily flow from it. They were undeserved, being God's generous
free gift to our first ancestors.
God
set before our first ancestors a choice. He told them of the existence
of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", and warned them that if they
ate its fruit they would die. It is unclear exactly what the immediate
effect of eating this forbidden fruit was. Satan (the Master of Lies!)
is presented as saying that it would "open the eyes" and give wisdom [Gen
3:5-5], and indeed it does seem to have had some direct effect [Gen
3:7]. Certainly, the perspective of our first ancestors on life,
corporeality and each other was abruptly changed. Whether the fruit
itself had an intrinsic power (as if it was infected with some virus),
or whether it was rather the act of disobedience to God's injunction
which had the effect of changing our ancestor's outlook on life is a moot
point.
The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge
If disobedience to God is the only issue (and the fruit of only accidental
significance), then God seems to have presented his friends with an arbitrary
temptation that was not necessary, and to have almost provoked them to
disobey Him: perhaps on the basis that "they're going to do it sooner or
later, so let's get it over and done with!" On the other hand, perhaps
the story should be taken more generically, and the fruit of the "Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil" be understood as whatever was in
fact the first improperly ordered good to be misappropriated by the human
race. However, it is difficult to make any sense of the divine warning
of a specific danger [Gen 2:17] on this basis,
and even less of the acknowledgement by God that his creatures had "become
like One of Us, knowing good and evil" [Gen
3:22]. Note the plural form in which God talks of HimSelves here.
Intrinsic significance of the Tree of Knowledge
I rather think that the fruit (even if metaphorically interpreted) had
some intrinsic significance. It was not an arbitrary act
that God warned against, it was not disobedience per se that was the issue.
Rather, God was concerned to warn about a particular objective possibility,
that came with a definite cost. I believe that human nature changed when
this fruit was eaten. Why a consciousness of "nakedness" and apparent feelings
of shame [Gen 3:10] should result is unclear.
Perhaps, before "the Fall", man was a naive, simple and amoral soul;
not able to conceive of ethical issues. In which case, our conscience
and moral intuition comes to us as a result of eating the fruit of the
"Tree of Knowledge". God first created mankind, with free-will,
then let us get on with the business of developing into sentient beings
with a certain independence from Him. He did this by offering the prize
of "Moral Knowledge", warning what the cost would inevitably be, and standing
back to let events take their inevitable, sad but necessary, desirable
and
eventually glorious course. This explains God's tender act of
providing a first set of clothes for his wayward children
[Gen
3:21].
On the other hand, this produces the difficulty that one has to conceive
of our first ancestors as sub-ethical, more monkeys than men: having no
sense of moral responsibility or justice beyond "obeying or not obeying",
perhaps associated with fear of punishment. This is rather like the condition
typical of "conservatives"
or "fundamentalists"
ever since! Why should God set out to deny humanity any ethical understanding?
Why should its attainment have such dire consequences [Gen
3:16-19]? It would seem that before "the Fall", mankind was
sub-human rather than super-human, and that the reward for moral
elevation was toil, pain, suffering and death!
Perhaps God's warning that child-birth would become more painful is
a clue. Objectively, giving birth is typically so painful for women because
the head of a human infant is relatively huge. Perhaps, the consequence
of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was a huge increase
in brain-power, the gaining of "self-consciousness"
and a consequential expansion of the skull! Similarly, farming [Gen
3:17-19] is a difficult affair, because of the increased demands
of a knowledge and city based agricultural society, as opposed to a less
civilized "hunter gatherer" existence [Gen 2:15-16].
The Fall
In either case, the loss of God's friendship (sanctifying
grace) followed immediately and necessarily, and the preternatural
graces were lost as a consequence. In place of these, Man had gained a
distance from God; which was both a disastrous loss of intimacy and a valuable
independence. The Catechism is entirely and dangerously wrong in stating
[CCC
#396] that friendship with God consists in "free
submission" to Him. This view is more characteristic of Islam,
rather than Christianity. St
Thomas Aquinas teaches that there has to be a two-way traffic in friendship:
give and take. As I have pointed out elsewhere,
Abraham and Moses, the two Biblical figures specifically favoured with
the appellation "Friend of God" had particularly tempestuous and argumentative
relationships with the Lord [Gen 18:22-33, 32:11-14].
Moreover, Jesus teaches that his service is perfect freedom [Mt
11:30, Jn 8:36].
O God, who art the light of the minds
that know thee,
the life of the souls that love thee,
the strength of the thoughts that seek thee:
help us so to know thee that we may truly love
thee,
so to love thee that we may fully serve thee,
whose service is perfect freedom.
Gelasian Sacramentory C5/6th
The Fathers, following the scriptures [Wis 10:2],
teach that the sin of disobedience was repented and that God forgave it;
but that the consequences remained. The question then arises, "Why?" While
there was no obligation on God to restore the preternatural graces, it
would seem that He might have done so. They were no less deserved after
the Fall than before! Much more importantly, although "sanctifying grace"
was restored (without any quasi-sacramental instrumentality) its original
character as "inheritable" [CCC #404] was
lost. That "original justice" was inheritable and the restored "state
of grace" is not was defined by the Council of Trent [Session
V cannons 1&2], however no account of why is given.
I
suggest that original sin is inherited (or, if you prefer, sanctifying
grace is not inherited) because the nature that we now have is different
from that which characterized humanity in the beginning. Human nature was
changed by the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. This change makes it impossible
for a child to inherit the status of "Friend of God" from its natural parents,
even if that child is conceived, born and brought-up by parents who are
both continuously in a state of grace. Note that the idea that original
sin is associated with (the pleasure associated with) sexual intercourse
was condemned by Trent.
Exactly what the change in Human Nature was, I do not mean to stipulate;
though I have suggested that it is self-consciousness.
Unless one holds to such a position, it seems to me that it is impossible
to explain why the "original justice" was inheritable, but "restored justice"
not so. The original act of disobedience changed the human condition not
by changing the status of Man before God (it did this, but that
status
was soon and easily restored - remember that Abraham and Moses were both
Friends of God) but rather by changing his nature. However,
it did so not by corrupting it, as
Luther taught, but rather by enhancing it!
I have discussed "the guilt of original sin", and the punishment due
to it elsewhere.
The icon shows the "Harrowing of Hell", with the Risen Christ trampling
on the symbols of death and offering the hand of Friendship to Adam, as
other Old Testament heroes and heroines stand by watching.
God
set before our first ancestors a choice. He told them of the existence
of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", and warned them that if they
ate its fruit they would die. It is unclear exactly what the immediate
effect of eating this forbidden fruit was. Satan (the Master of Lies!)
is presented as saying that it would "open the eyes" and give wisdom [Gen
3:5-5], and indeed it does seem to have had some direct effect [Gen
3:7]. Certainly, the perspective of our first ancestors on life,
corporeality and each other was abruptly changed. Whether the fruit
itself had an intrinsic power (as if it was infected with some virus),
or whether it was rather the act of disobedience to God's injunction
which had the effect of changing our ancestor's outlook on life is a moot
point.
I
suggest that original sin is inherited (or, if you prefer, sanctifying
grace is not inherited) because the nature that we now have is different
from that which characterized humanity in the beginning. Human nature was
changed by the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. This change makes it impossible
for a child to inherit the status of "Friend of God" from its natural parents,
even if that child is conceived, born and brought-up by parents who are
both continuously in a state of grace. Note that the idea that original
sin is associated with (the pleasure associated with) sexual intercourse
was condemned by Trent.