Is man inherently good?

1 • Welcome to the future!

(If possible, read the quoted text below with a slightly arrogant tone)

“Finally, we did it! It was tough, but we made it…”

“We’ve put in an incalculable number of years…”

“The journey has been long… the work strenuous… there were some bumps along the way…”

“It must be said that we had already understood one thing a few centuries ago: that man is inherently good… what corrupts him is only the wrong education.”

“We already knew that by reforming social structures, we would solve the problem.”

“By intervening in the ‘system,’ everything would be fixed… and man could live in peace with himself and others.”

“The problem is society: the communards of Paris said it; Marxists and Nazis repeated it; socialists and capitalists continued to assert it!”

• “Injustices? Blame society!”
• “Inequalities? Blame the lack of education!”
• “Crimes and delinquency? Blame the economy!”
• “Discrimination? Blame education!”

“…how foolish the men of the past were! How did they not find the right laws? How did they go wrong in their educational methods?”

“Fortunately, WE have arrived!”

“With OUR laws, we will do justice to the greatness of man!”

“Now that WE have control over education, the future of our country will be bright!”

…

…

Let’s try to remove the triumphant tone, arrogance, and the “we-know-it-all” attitude, and focus on the core of the issue…

… Is man truly good by nature?

Is the “blame” on society?

On misguided education?

On the context in which one lives?

If there were a well-structured path of human development (anthropological, social, psychological, political), proposed to every individual from childhood to adulthood, could we create paradise on earth?

And achieve that much-desired world peace, sought after by every respectable Miss Universe?

2 • The woman, the apple, the serpent, and other “nonsense”

To seek an answer to the question of whether man is inherently good, let’s take a step back…

Let’s blow away the three layers of dust from the Bible that Aunt Adaline gave us on the day of our first communion and see if something interesting comes out of those yellowed pages…

I believe that the heart of the matter is contained at the beginning of the three thousand and something pages, in the early chapters of the book of Genesis.

You probably all know the story of Adam and Eve: the man and the woman – who live in holy peace in the earthly paradise – are deceived by the serpent, cast doubt on God’s goodness, betray His trust, and lose the chance to remain in the garden of Eden:

Now.

On the blog, I had already discussed the literary genres found in the Bible.

And how (Bible or not Bible), to understand the meaning of a text, it is necessary to contextualize it (as my professor used to say, “there is no text without context”).

Regarding the Genesis passage I mentioned, we can say (without complicating things too much) that it uses highly symbolic language.

Let’s be clear: “symbolic” does not mean “false.”

“Symbolic” doesn’t even mean “empirically verifiable in a laboratory.”

The word “symbol” (from the Greek σύν “together” and βάλλω “to throw”) literally means “to put together”; it signifies something that “refers to…” or “evokes something different from what the thing is physically…”

The German philosopher Josef Pieper (1904-1997) once said:

Symbolic language uses analogies, allusions, correspondences.

It’s a language that challenges the concept of truth in rationalism and, therefore, “expands” it.

Moreover, if you think about it, the same might apply to myths or fairy tales… just to say: do you think the story of “the ant and the grasshopper” is true or false?

3 • Genesis, meaning

In the previous paragraph, I hinted that myths and fairy tales are texts that convey something true.

Good. However…

…Genesis is not a fairy tale (*).

…Genesis is not a myth (*).

Genesis is the Word of God (*): it is a text that, through symbols, narrates truths about God and humanity, about the nature of the latter and its heart, about a betrayed trust and the resulting wound (*).

(*) (As usual, if Christianity is true… otherwise, we’re just here powdering our noses)

“Let’s pretend” not to be all skeptics and materialists (more or less).

“Let’s pretend” that the book of Genesis is not an archaeological artifact.

Let’s assume for a moment that it is an inspired text; that it is truly the word of God; that in those lines, there is “something” God wanted to communicate to us.

What is it about?

Is it a “reportage” of what happened at the beginning of time? The story of a beautiful garden, a talking serpent, a forbidden apple, and an offended God?

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) said:

Joseph Ratzinger echoed this sentiment in 1985:

What does the story of Adam and Eve mean?

God created man and woman as good. They are so “well made” that He takes delight in His work:

Creation is conceived by God as a relationship of communion and trust.

However, at some point, a “mysterious character” appears: the serpent (whom we will talk about someday):

The serpent whispered a few words, enough to sow a seed of doubt in the ears of Adam and Eve. So much so that the two took the bait:

In summary, Adam and Eve questioned what God had told them.

They no longer trusted Him and began to ponder:

The result of this attitude is the breakdown of trust between God and His creatures.

The consequence is a wound in the heart of man.

That wound is called the “original sin.“

Man loses trust in God…

…but also in others: Adam no longer trusts Eve (and vice versa); they accuse each other, creating an atmosphere of suspicion:

The relationships are no longer ones of communion but of distrust and mutual dominance.

“Homo homini lupus.” “Mors tua, vita mea.”

4 • Original Sin, or: “But what do I have to do with it?”

And here, the question might arise: “Yes, okay. Got the point. Curses on Adam and Eve… but what do I have to do with it?”

“If THEY sinned, what’s my fault?”

Unfortunately, the wound doesn’t only concern Adam and Eve.

To use an analogy, just as polluted water springs from a polluted source, so it has been for humans: since the beginning of time, each of us has a nagging thought in our minds, “God and others are cheating me… better if I play God and fix things myself.”

The creature refuses to accept being just a creature and wants to play the role of the creator.

And then it causes damage (*).

(*) (Among the attempts to create “earthly paradises” by removing God from the equation, we can recall the French Revolution and the ensuing Reign of Terror, fascism, Soviet communism, Nazism, Cuban communism, Latin American dictatorships, totalitarianism in North Korea, half of African dictatorships, etc.)

The story of original sin is a symbolic, yet true, account of a fall.

After this fall, man remains profoundly marked.

5 • Original Sin “Exposed” by Non-Christians

I’ve always appreciated the fact that – in the letter to the Romans – Paul of Tarsus confesses very candidly:

I believe these verses are one of the most explicit testimonies of the traces that original sin leaves in the heart of man: an alienation, a desire for good that finds no fulfillment.

A “schizophrenia.”

The “funny” thing about original sin is that, throughout history, many people – who were not Christians – have glimpsed its effects.

Ovid (43 BCE – 17 CE), one of the most famous Latin poets, wrote:

The renowned italian poet Ugo Foscolo (1778-1827) echoed this sentiment:

More subtle and cynical, but on the same wavelength, is Oscar Wilde (1854-1900):

And as the cherry on top, the comedian Groucho Marx (1890-1977) added:

It’s not a matter of good or bad education: it’s an imbalance that touches the most intimate chords of man…

Gustave Thibon (1903-2001), a French philosopher and writer, humorously commented:

In essence, why does Ovid’s phrase (as mentioned earlier) seem so similar to that of Saint Paul? Why do Foscolo and Groucho Marx touch on the same themes, despite not being Christians?

6 • Original Sin in the Third Millennium

As the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he was the Prefect of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” stated:

In simpler terms, translating this statement into more straightforward language:

The German shepherd continues:

In short, as also stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the paragraph on original sin:

The consequences of original sin have repercussions:

• Educational
• Political
• Social

7 • The Alternative to Original Sin: Pelagianism

Since it’s the third month in a row that I mention Pelagianism, I’ll write a few more lines on the topic…

Pelagius (360-420) was a “Briton” ascetic (a Celtic population) who preached in Rome around 390.

The center of his preaching consists of an optimistic view of the human condition: for Pelagius, if a person TRULY wants to be good, they find within themselves the strength to do so; the will alone is sufficient to do good and reject sin.

According to Pelagius, original sin “concerns” only Adam and Eve. Other men have not contracted this wound.

For Pelagius, the grace given by Christ is not necessary: “Yes, okay, it’s an extra help… but you can do without it!”. The same goes for sacraments and prayers: they are not fundamental; what matters is decisive moral action; what matters are personal forces.

…

… A few years later, Augustine of Hippo (with his “On Nature and Grace” in 415) dismantled Pelagius’s error: an error that consisted “in praising the work of the Creator of human nature to the point of making the work of the Redeemer unnecessary. […] Pelagius emptied the passion and death of Christ of meaning“ (ALBERTO TORRESANI, Storia della Chiesa. Dalla comunità di Gerusalemme a papa Francesco, p. 109 and onwards).

Unfortunately, the disappearance of original sin from the catechesis of many priests, I believe, is inexorably leading to a growing lack of mercy.

Why?

Because those who deny original sin, i.e., those who deny this alienation in the heart of man, gradually (with words or through their lifestyle) convey the message that “it all depends on your strength”… So, if “you’ve been told” how you should behave, and you don’t, “the blame is all yours!”

• “If you truly cared about others, you wouldn’t do this!”
• “I’ve told you so many times, and you still don’t understand that you’re causing me pain!”
• “It’s clear that you don’t care about that person, otherwise, you wouldn’t say these things!”

As Pope Francis also wrote:

Those who deny the wound of original sin gradually become ruthless (first with themselves, and then with others).

On the contrary, having this fragility in front of one’s eyes that touches the deepest chords is a source of mercy and empathy; recognizing my weakness helps me (with the grace of God) to accept that of others.

8 • Conclusion

In essence, the problem of original sin is one: it bothers us to discover our weakness.

We would like to do without the gift of God’s grace…

A “Other” who heals my wounds, gives me His gaze, helps me accept my vulnerabilities and those of others, forgives me… doesn’t sit well with us “emancipated Christians” of the third millennium!

(Yet, at Mass, we repeat – parrotlike? – in the Creed: “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven”… only if God himself takes the initiative is there “salvation”)

Fortunately, God is patient. He knows how to keep pace with people’s pride (starting with mine). Waiting for a crack to enter… “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20).

sale

(Winter 2019-2020)