405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social and morals.
The above is in the Catholic Catechism.
Below is from here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-regarding-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-sin-and-free-will/
The will of fallen man retains the ability to choose between good and evil, but it does not, on its own, have the power to choose man’s supernatural good.1 Neither actual nor sanctifying grace are necessary to choose between courage and cowardice, between generosity and stinginess, between responsible parenting and neglect of one’s children. We see non-Christians freely choose between these, sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly, on a daily basis. Grace is necessary for choosing and attaining man’s supernatural end. That’s what Pelagianism denies. St. Augustine never denied that pagans have free will to choose between good and evil. Nor did he hold that every action by an unregenerate person was a sin. Rather, he held that persons without actual grace could not choose our supernatural end, and that persons without sanctifying grace could not merit our supernatural end, namely, heaven. Failing to distinguish between nature and grace, and between our natural end and our supernatural end, leads to concluding falsely that affirming fallen man’s ability to choose freely between good and evil is some sort of Pelagianism.
from comment 10 on the above blog
I agree that there is a difference between the way Catholics and Protestants conceive of what it means to be “dead in sin.” Protestants (at least those in Sproul’s tradition) conceive of it just as you described, as being unable not to sin, or rather, as being able only to sin. And that is due to their notion of what happened at the Fall, namely, that human nature itself was corrupted, such that the power of the will to choose between good and evil was lost. By contrast, the Catholic conception of original sin is that human nature itself remained intact, but that sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts were lost when Adam sinned. And therefore for the Catholic, “dead in sin” does not mean “being able only to sin,” or not having the ability to choose between good and evil. Rather, it means that man is without sanctifying grace, i.e. without the life of God. And contra Pelagianism, man cannot reacquire that grace that Adam lost, unless God gives it, which He has done for us through Christ.I have written a couple articles on this, drawing from lectures given by Prof. Lawrence Feingold. The first is titled “Lawrence Feingold on Original Justice and Original Sin.” The second is titled “Protestant Objections to the Catholic Doctrines of Original Justice and Original Sin.” I hope those are helpful to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment