I’ve been perusing a small book called Theology for Today’s Catholic:  A Handbook  that I picked up at a local parish and came across this statement on pp. 49 and 50.

 "Two Views of Original Sin

“Two main theological approaches try to make sense out of this truth about ourselves…[first one covered is loss of original perfection]…An alternative approach offers an evolutionary or developmental explanation.  Instead of seeing weakness or imperfection of people as a result of having lost something that was originally present, original sin is presented as the natural consequence of immaturity and incompleteness.  God’s creation of humanity is still underway and is not yet finished.  People are still not what they are meant to be in God’s mind, because God hasn’t finished with them.  We still do not understand who God is and what bring the image of God means because we haven’t yet developed the ability to understand.  As history unfolds, God makes use of our shared history to reveal himself to us, to teach us, to bring us growth, and to move us forward in the development of our God consciousness.  In this view, Christ is the perfect model of what we are all meant to one day become.  But he is much more than that.  His is the way to become God’s image, the definitive force which makes it possible for us to make a great leap forward and through whom the ongoing creation by God the Father is brought to its completion.”

I’ve never heard this view and the book (published by Liguori and authored by Stephen Rehrauer, C.Ss.R.) provides no bibliography or references to the material within.  I find myself uneasy with this view of original sin on a couple of grounds:

1. If we did not lose an “original perfection” or “original grace” where is the need for a “redeemer” who offers Himself on our behalf as a perfect sacrifice?
2. The whole theology seems vaguely Hegelian, or Chardin-ian, or even a bit Mormon…the idea that we are always evolving into something better and haven’t reached the perfection that God wants for us as a process of “evolution” and “history.”

Does anyone know of a source for this view of original sin?  Does anyone have a definitive answer to whether it is an accepted “alternative” to the loss of “original grace” about which I learned and about which I teach my children?

(And why doesn't <blockquote></blockquote> work anymore?)

Christopher:

The heading of the section is "Two Views of Original Sin" without disclaimer that one is Catholic and the other not.  Both are presented as alternatives to understanding original sin.

I'm looking for sources from which this might have come.  It certainly seems to go against the CCC where we read:

"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.

"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'.

"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')." 416-418 [emphasis mine]

So what I'm looking for is source material for the view and some understanding around whether this view is orthodox and how it fits a "traditional" view of original sin.

Michael "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried" "The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

Loretta:

Also true, as I see it.  The book has the imprimatur of Bishop Hermann, auxiliary of the Archdiocese of St. Louis.  So I'm trying to find some reference to this view of Original Sin.  Not having any luck either...not just in Catholic doctrine, but any resource.

Ideas? 

Michael

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried" "The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

Just a cursory search on Yahoo with:

+immaturity +incomplete +"original sin"

the first link is "Crossing the Threshold of Liberation" 

Seems like this is a Buddhist perspective.

Under the section, "Oneness in Universal Love instead of Reliance on the Creator"

For a Christian the only salvation is through complete love for and devotion to god. Only in the name of Jesus and through the redeeming power of His crucifixion and resurrection can the original sin of each individual be cleansed. This complete reliance on god enhances the dualistic distinction between the Creator and His creatures. In Buddhism, our sorrows are rooted in the illusive concept of a self, and through practice it is possible to free ourselves from the limitations of such illusions and regain our original purity. Buddha may show us the correct path to such liberation, but we do need to walk the path ourselves. When we become liberated all distinctions evaporate, and we are one with Buddhas.

If this is where it is coming from, it is simply yet another example of Truth being watered down to meaninglessness.

You have to click the link to disable rich text. Then you have to write in plain text and add your own formatting codes.

There's another half to a Bishop's Imprimatur, which literaly means "print it." That is Nihil Obstat, which literally means "nothing opposes," as in "nothing opposes the teachings of the faith." Now, legitimate theology needs neither an Imprimatur nor a Nihil Obstat in order for the theologian to think on the teachings of the Church or to publish his thoughts. Moreover, speculative theology is perfectly legitimate as well. Speculative theology still should not contradict the teachings of the Church, but if you think about it, the strict doctrine of the Church is rather narrow in its scope. For instance, regarding Mary, there are only four doctrines:

1) Mary is the Mother of God.

2) Mary is perpetually a virgin.

3) Mary is immaculately conceived.

4) Mary is assumed into heaven body and soul by the power of her Divine Son.

Not even the coronation of Mary as Queen of heaven and earth rises to the level to strict doctrine. Rather it is declared by Pius XII in his encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam, in 1954. Now, this does not mean that one can dissent from the teaching on Mary's queenship role. Indeed, Pius XII did not invent anything with his encyclical but rather observes that "[f]rom the earliest ages of the catholic church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven." Thus, he ties Mary's queenship to the Sacred Tradition and moreover derives his particular explanation as a consequence of the four doctrines, particularly that of the Assumption: "It is gratifying to recall that We ourselves, on the first day of November of the Holy Year 1950, before a huge multitude of Cardinals, Bishops, priests, and of the faithful who had assembled from every part of the world, defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven where she is present in soul and body reigning, together with her only Son, amid the heavenly choirs of angels and Saints." It is simply not logical (i.e. not reasonable) for Christ to assume his mother into heaven and then fail to honor her at His side as His Queen. But the queenship role is a conclusion based on the doctrine.

Other theologians can engage in more speculative reasoning than this particular illustration, and such speculation is perfectly legitimate provided it is concordant with the teaching of the Church and represents a reasonable application or incorporation of the Church's teaching. And to some ears, speculative theology can sound like dissent, even if it's not. This is why St. John of the Cross wrote a book-length explanation of his poem, "The Dark Night of the Soul.” The words of St. John’s poem sound downright provocative – and they are – and to some, this sort of provocative language could be incorrectly understood as unchaste. So St. John’s explanation serves to minimize the risk of scandal due to incorrect understanding.

With respect to the quote at the top of this post, it is hard to pass judgment on its faithfulness unless we have access to the full text. It is possible that this particular paragraph merely refers to an exploration of the writer which is better clarified elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is also possible that it represents a departure from the teaching of Church, especially in these dark days where confusion weighs so heavily upon the Body of Christ. For this reason, we must be vigilant and we should highlight errant theology and explain its errors. But we should do so charitably and even point out the possible merits of the errant theology and the way it is presented. Any merits would be those aspects of the theology that agree with the teaching of the Church and our charity would extract these points, fill in the missing pieces and gently correct the error.

This discussion is about advanced modern theology. Fr Rehrauer seems a very reputable and dedicated priest. I am afraid I cannot give an opinion about his theology, but consider his views should be carefully considered.

Rev. Stephen Rehrauer, C.Ss.R., is invited professor of moral theology at the Accademia Alfonsiana in Rome and the Instituto Superior de Ciencias Morales in Madrid.

In reflecting upon the past 25 years, Father Rehrauer remarks: "I’ve been privileged to have the best of both worlds. I’ve been given the opportunity to serve God’s people pastorally and to learn from them the type of religious God is calling me to be, and now I am being given the opportunity to share what I have learned from this experience with others who are being called to do the same. http://www.alfonsiana.edu/PR%20-%20EN%20Rehrauer.htm

Father Rehrauer writes in the introduction to his book:



Adult faith requires a constant search for a deeper and more mature understanding. As we live our lives, as our lives become busier and more complicated, our understanding of the meaning of what we believe, and what we do when we act on our beliefs must also keep pace and grow.

http://www.wellsprings.com.sg/nzc/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=7504

"The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers."

I think this is also interesting in light of the new non-magisterial document coming from the vatican The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Some of the views expressed in that document seem to mirror this "second" view of original sin.

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

This was a great discussion.  I think it was started with a good topic of discussion.  People presented their views.  Some research was done.  Then the author was contaced and the author based his answer on the Fathers of the Church.  And we continue to discuss the idea.  I am impressed with everyone on the CE round table.  Way to go and keep it up.

GK - God is good!

Michael,

You lost me a little.

In what way does the way we picked up original sin affect whether or not God is Merciful?  No matter what, if one gets to Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism, it is only through God's Mercy. 

Loretta:

Both Augustine and Aquinas development of Original Sin consigned the unbaptized to Hell; Augustine's was active punishment whereas Aquinas' was passive (not tortured by demons but fully aware of and suffering from denial of the Beatific Vision).   The manner in which we pick up original sin does not affect God's mercy (We are bound by the Sacraments, God is not, etc. (I know you know this. I'm putting it here for others reading it who may not)).  The CCC and the Mass for Unbaptized Children both consign the unbaptized infant to God's mercy. 

I certainly didn't mean to say that God's mercy only works in one system and not the other.  If I left that impression, my apologies.  I do see that this second method has some merit in explaining how God's Infinite Mercy (which could allow all into heaven) can "supercede" (if that's the right word) His Infinite Justice (which would consign all to Hell).  However, there seems to be a lot of work to be done to develop this theology of Original Sin and rectify it with Church teaching in other areas.

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

PS:

Can't and won't disagree that Him who said, "Suffer the little children to come to me, for to such as these belong the Kingdom of God," (yes, I know, Fallacy of Accent) should find a way to allow them to come to Him.  Your last paragraph, to me, demonstrates in more loving words the sum of the recent document...Grace overcomes sin.

But, right now, this is a matter of personal piety and not a teaching of the Church, which I believe is why JPII made it a priority for theologians world-wide.

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton