The Not So Original Sin

Part II: Discussion

7. Creationism

This approach maintains that the world came into existence in a way very close to what is described in the Book of Genesis, that is, through seven particular epochs (Greek αἰῶνες). These were not literal “days”, since a diurnal cycle did not exist from the very beginning.

In this view, God immediately created the Earth, plants, and animals more or less as they are now, although significant variation within species and higher taxa is possible.

This theory exists in several forms. According to some versions, the age of our planet and the universe is relatively small, sometimes on the order of several thousand years.

The sin of the angels still precedes the sin of man. But in contrast to evolutionism there is an important difference: there were no millions of years of suffering life.

If so, it is possible that the universe remained in an undamaged state up until the original sin of humans.

This makes Adam’s fall far more catastrophic. Its consequences would then include not only our own mortality, but also the corruption of the entire cosmos. Decay, dissolution, disease, and mutual predation would have appeared only after – and as a direct result of – our sin.

8. Which of the Two Cosmologies Is Correct?

Neither evolutionism nor creationism is dogmatized. Therefore, at present there can be no definitive answer, and one may not emerge for some time.

Today, creationist views are outperformed by evolutionary theory in almost all respects and are often mocked. However, the historical pendulum may yet swing back in the other direction.

In past centuries, the dominant view was that humanity had indeed “ruined everything”. Irenaeus, Augustine (in several passages), Maximus the Confessor, and Latin scholastics in general held that it was the fall of man that entailed the distortion of the cosmos.

Contemporary Catholic teaching is more cautious, especially after Humani Generis. The magisterium employs more restrained theological formulations, holding that the consequences of original sin affect primarily human nature and our relationship with God and Creation.

Nevertheless, many still regard the traditional interpretation of the effects of original sin as the only correct one.

The most prominent place of Scripture touching upon this matter is Romans 8:19-21:

“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

The text implies that the restoration of the order of creation will come through redeemed humanity. However, it does not explicitly state what exactly “subjected nature to futility.” Thus, it allows for both interpretations.

9. Discussion

So, we are left with two possible models.

The first: the primordial sin of demons damaged the universe. The original sin of humans distorted our own condition and fate.

The second: the fall of man caused both.

Personally, I find the second model far less convincing, for the following reasons:

a) It is rooted in creationism and is less compatible with evolution. Yet traditional theology in past centuries did not even consider evolutionism. If the scholastics had known that the Church permits such a possibility, they would likely have formed their hypotheses in a broader manner.

b) From this view it follows that the fall of demons did not really cause any significant harm. They were powerless to damage the laws or matter of the cosmos. All they managed to accomplish was the temptation of humans.

This seems implausible. Spirits are majestic entities, stewards of the cosmos; they themselves are its ordering principles. It appears more logical that their corruption would be precisely what damaged the universe.

c) There is no direct logical connection between the sin of man (a betrayal of trust) and the distortion of the world. It is understandable that our distancing from God would wound our nature. But why, in principle, should this affect the whole universe? Creation is not a continuation or extension of humanity.

Rephrased in more emotional, popular language, this would imply that animals were “punished for nothing.”

d) If the universe remained pristine before the fall of man, it becomes unclear why Eden was required as a special, separate place.

e) An argumentation through a Thomistic lens is provided in the spoiler below the main text, for advanced readers.

f) It is known that the Sacrament of Baptism washes away the consequences of original sin, restoring the union between man and God. However, it does not free us from mortality: even baptized people suffer illnesses and die in an ordinary human manner.

This is coherent if our mortality is a wound resulting from some damage other than original sin.

g) Finally: if the state of the world before the original sin was flawless, it would follow that in the future transfiguration of the universe God will create nothing new, but will merely restore what had once already existed.

Yet, in my view, it better befits the omnipotence and majesty of the Lord that the renewed world will be better than it has ever been at any point in history.

10. Conclusion

Let us once again emphasize that this article is a speculation; not a teaching but a work of theological inquiry.

Accordingly, the considerations presented above are not proofs, but arguments. Both positions discussed remain permissible within the Catholic framework; still, I prefer to regard the first one as more realistic.

We can briefly summarize it as follows:

It was demons who damaged the universe before us, not humans. We, however, damaged our own nature and history, neglected our vocation, and thus lost a real opportunity to heal Creation.

In my view, this approach possesses several decisive advantages:

a) it forms a non-contradictory picture of the history of salvation, one that is not bound to a traditional and possibly outdated cosmology.

In doing so, it indirectly supports evolutionism, although I never intended to “defend” it as such.

b) it functions well as a theodicy.

c) it distributes responsibility between humans and spirits, clearly affirming our direct responsibility for our fall, while not imposing upon us guilt for what we did not cause.

d) It allows for a clearer interpretation of certain obscure passages of Scripture.

e) finally, it seems to resonate with what many of us often intuitively feel: that we came into the world in order to transform it, and that we are responsible for animals as for our younger siblings.

At the same time, we often sense that sometime long ago we failed to give them something very important. This intuition is, of course, subjective; yet it seems to me that expressing this ancient feeling as “we could have saved them, but we did not” is a more precise formulation than “we doomed them to suffering.”

11. Prayer

Domine Deus, tu nobis in terra laborem magnum dedisti, et vocationem implendam designasti:

Nos autem ista reliquimus. Scis, o Altissime, omnes lapsus et circumerrationes nostras. Ignosce nobis, quaeso, virtutem laesam et tempus omissum, prout licet et inquantum rei sumus.

Debita ista dimitte, et vulnera nostra sana: respice super vocationem nostram confractam et reparatam, ut convalescat: et, si non in innocentia originali, tunc in resilientia regenerandi nos, quaesumus, accipe. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

English translation for reference:

Lord God, you entrusted us with a great labor upon the earth and appointed a vocation to be fulfilled. Yet we have abandoned it.

You know, O Most High, all our falls and our long wanderings.

Forgive us, we beseech you, our wounded strength and for the time we have wasted, insofar as it is permitted and insofar as we are truly at fault.

Remit these debts and heal our wounds; look upon our vocation, broken and yet restored, that it may recover.

And receive us, we pray, if not in original innocence, then in the resilience of renewal.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Bonus argument:

Traditional theology holds that in Eden humanity existed in a state of elevated nature. To natura pura (pure nature) were added supernatural gifts (dona gratiae gratis datae, dona supernaturalia, or superaddita dona), so that man might preserve justitia originalis – original righteousness.
This elevation placed the first humans in the condition of posse non peccare, that is, the ability not to sin.

However, this also means that natura pura itself – our unelevated nature – was in the state of non posse non peccare, that is, vulnerable to sin.

Consequently, even prior to original sin, humanity was already affected by a general damage of the created order – namely, by an evil introduced into the universe by something other than human sin. It is logical to suppose that this damage was a consequence of the sin of demons.

This does not imply that the original nature of humanity was evil or sinful. Metaphysical evil – that is, a wound or limitation of nature – is different from moral evil. Natura pura was good, though limited.

At this point, one might perceive a danger of determinism and ask: does this mean that the first humans, had they appeared outside of Eden, would inevitably have sinned?

However:

1. This is a speculation within a speculation, since God created the first rational humans strictly within Eden, where they possessed full freedom of will. For this very reason, Eden was an indispensable element of the history of salvation.

2. Had the first humans appeared outside of Eden and without knowledge of God, then yes – it is likely that they would have performed acts which, in materia, constituted sin. Yet there would have been no moral horizon within which such acts could be designated as sin in forma.

In this sense, their condition would have been not so much non posse non peccare as – speaking figuratively – non posse ens morale esse. This would have rendered them a peculiar form of life that would not even qualify as human in the strict theological sense.

Therefore, such an alternative historical scenario is meaningless to consider. What matters is that, in real history, humanity possessed a genuine and free choice: whether to commit a transgression or not.

1,300 words — a medium-length article or slightly shorter. Approximately 5–6 minutes at an average reading pace.

The first part of the article is approximately 1,500 words long.

The non-essential spoiler after the main text is ~400 words long.

Advanced. Complex theological questions are examined, a non-standard interpretation is proposed, and no definitive answer is given.

An exploration of how the fall of angels is related to the fall of humanity and to cosmology as a whole.

1. This text does not present official Catholic doctrine, but a theological investigation. Nevertheless, every effort is made to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.

2. This article does not address whether “original sin” is an adequate term, nor does it engage with objections to the concept as such. These questions are real and significant, but they fall outside the scope of the present discussion and deserve a separate treatment.

Sacred Trash

The Luminous Mysteries II

The Luminous Mysteries I