(Note: the blue horizontal menu bar directly above lists the subsections of "Original Sin in the Bible as Read Today." Beginning with "Acceptance of Evolution by Pope John Paul II," be sure to read each of these subsections before moving on to the next primary section, "New Interpretation of Original Sin.")

Some Contemporary Approaches to Original Sin

Introduction  >  Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ  >  Augustine Hulsbosch, OSA  >  
Karl Rahner, SJ  >  Piet Schoonenberg, SJ  >  Paul Ricoeur  >  Paul Tillich  >  
Herbert Haag  >  Robert Wright

Introduction  (return to top)

The issue. We grant that humans need the grace of God—through Christ—to attain their eternal salvation with God in the communion of saints. Since being created does not automatically qualify us for eternal life, we need God's grace to elevate us. God, as "uncreated grace," teaches and loves us. That divine knowledge and love, in turn, is a "created grace" that heals and transforms us. And yet, concupiscence remains as a tendency toward sinfulness on our part that we have "inherited" in some way.

The real issue before us is not whether or not we need grace to be saved (we do), but why we still have such a strong tendency toward sin? While theologians' traditional explanations depended on there having been a real historical Adam and Eve, newer approaches, based on evolution, deny their historical reality while still having a doctrine of original sin and its effect, concupiscence.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ  (return to top)

Teilhard wrote several sets of notes about original sin, but did not publish them during his lifetime. They were written in the 1920s and 1940s, but translated by René Hague and published in 1971 (sixteen years after Teilhard's death) under the title Christianity and Evolution (Teilhard 1971). Briefly, Teilhard made the following points:

• There is no indication in archaeology or anywhere else in the sciences of a historical Adam and Eve living in an earthly paradise as described in Genesis 2-3.



• The sin of Adam and Eve is used to explain the origin of death, but evolution has a far better explanation, namely the dissolution of complex reality, which is composed of parts that will separate, living cells that will someday die.



• Original sin has far more meaning if it is considered as the sum total of false starts and failures of the evolutionary process, especially at the human level. It is the negative side of evolution. In his words:

Original sin is the reverse side of all creation. By the very fact that he creates, God commits himself to a fight against evil and in consequence to, in one way or another, effecting a redemption. The specifically human Fall is no more than the (broadly speaking, collective and eternal) actualizing of this 'fomes peccati' [stimulus to sin] which was infused, long before us, into the whole of the universe, from the lowest zones of matter to the angelic spheres [i.e., Darwinian selfishness]. Strictly speaking, there is no first Adam. The name disguises a universal and unbreakable law of reversion or perversion—the price that has to be paid for progress (40-41).

Elsewhere he says:

… [O]riginal sin expresses, translates, personifies, in an instantaneous and localized act, the perennial and universal law of imperfection which operates in mankind in virtue of its being 'in fieri' ["in the process of becoming"]. … The drama of Eden would be the very drama of the whole of human history concentrated in a symbol profoundly expressive of reality (51-52).

Teilhard's arguments imply that the universality of sin results from statistical necessity.¹¹ Interestingly, Matthew 18:7 agrees that "it is necessary that scandals come to be." They are taken away by Christ, the Omega Point.¹² As Teilhard passionately asks:

How, then, can we … make … original sin and … the figure of Christ cover the enormous and daily expanding panorama of the universe? How are we to maintain the possibility of a fault as cosmic as the Redemption?

The only way in which we can do so is by spreading the Fall throughout the whole of universal history, or at least by locating it before a complete refashioning, a recasting, of which the present order of things, in its experiential totality, would be the result (54).

And salvation? He says,

It is true that in this explanation original sin ceases to be an isolated act and becomes a state (affecting the human mass as a whole, as a result of an endless stream of transgressions punctuating mankind in the course of time). Yet even this, far from weakening the dogmatic characteristics of the Fall, intensifies them. In the first place, redemption is indeed universal, since it corrects a state of affairs (the universal presence of disorder) which is tied up with the most basic structure of the universe in process of creation (196-197).

Augustine Hulsbosch, OSA¹³  (return to top)

According to Hulsbosch (1965), evolutionary creation is still going on. The focus of original sin is not on Adam but rather on the fully glorified Christ of the future, the Omega Point of evolution. Humanity must gradually grow into the fullness of Christ to achieve its purpose.

Hulsbosch considers evolution a supernatural phenomenon. As with others, he wants to avoid a natural–supernatural dichotomy in the human. He feels that from the very first moment of creation a person is directed toward God, but that he/she can attain God only through the grace of Christ. That grace—a free gift—is also the final phase of God's creative action. Looking at sin from the end, we can see it as evolving from the incompleteness of humanity: "the refusal of man to subject himself to God's creative will;" "we now impute sin to man's wishing to stay where he is, seeking his happiness on earth, and refusing the continuing creative action of God." Hulsbosch defines original sin as "the powerlessness, arising from nature, of man in his uncompletedness as creature to reach his freedom and to realize the desire to see God, insofar as this impotence is put into the context of a sinful world" (47).

Karl Rahner, SJ  (return to top)

Rahner (1967, 1982; see also Duffy 1993) explains that to be human is to grow in freedom, but in a situation which arose prior to the individual. A person actualizes him- or herself as a free subject in a situation that is always determined by history and by other people. This situation enters into the intrinsic constitution of the act of freedom whereby we determine ourselves. Our experience tells us that there are objectifications of personal guilt in the world that threaten the free decisions of others, and which, as part of the situations in which the others' free decisions are made, become intrinsic elements of the free acts themselves. An example of this is the institution of slavery in the United States.

Christianity teaches that the role others' guilt plays in the situations of every person is universal, permanent, and therefore also original. There are no islands for the individual person that do not already bear the stamp of the guilt of others, directly or indirectly. Original sin may be defined as the universal and permanent guilt that permeates all situations in which free will takes place. Of course, a sinful situation that derives from the decision of another is only analogously—and not univocally—sinful.

In spite of the fact that sin and guilt have been universal and permanent since the beginning of the human race, God's offer of himself remains valid because of, and in view of, Christ.

Piet Schoonenberg, SJ  (return to top)

According to Schoonenberg (1965b, 1967), the Fall is constituted not by a catastrophic sin of the first man, but rather by the innumerable personal sins of all mankind throughout history, taken as a collectivity (Connor 1968, 229); it is the "sin of the world." This sin reaches the individual existentially, through his being situated in the world. "To be" is "to-be-in-a-situation," and thus intrinsically affected by that situation. Schoonenberg gives the example of psychological damage to a child long before it has a chance to defend itself or make a free decision. Such damage affects it long before it would be free to "imitate," and could be said, by extension, to have affected it "by propagation." On the universality of sin, Schoonenberg says that every sin becomes part of the existential situation of those born after it. Because sin has entered the world, every person will meet it in some form or other (124-91).

Paul Ricoeur  (return to top)

Ricoeur (1967) traces the earliest history of three interrelated concepts: defilement, sin, and guilt. The most fundamental of these is defilement, the sense of being dirty or filthy within. He believes this results from the basic feeling of extreme fear or dread that we finite, mortal beings have in the face of our diminishment through death. Various rituals are then established in order to 'cleanse' us from defilement, rationalized as deriving from an objective situation of "sin" caused by breaking certain taboos, such as the emission of semen, the shedding of blood, or even profuse bleeding as in the case of menstruation. Such "sin" makes one objectively guilty, and therefore in need of purification. This understanding of sin also includes murder and other immoral acts, but this ethical dimension is subsumed under the more primitive one of objective evil and its correlative, guilt. A careful study of the relevant texts in Leviticus 12-15 seems to bear this out. These profound human realities are expressed in symbolic myths that give rise to thought. Adam and Eve is such a fundamental myth.

Ricoeur believes that myth clarifies that however profound our sense of defilement, sin, and guilt might be, we are nevertheless fundamentally good! In his words:

We are still not in a position to understand this ultimate intention of the symbol of defilement; it cannot be brought to light except by means of the second-order symbols, especially the myth of the fall. Then we shall understand that myth is not symmetrical with the good, wickedness is not something that replaces the goodness of a man; it is the staining, the darkening, the disfiguring of an innocence, a light, and a beauty that remain. However radical evil may be, it cannot be as primordial as goodness (156).

Paul Tillich  (return to top)

Tillich states unequivocally that there never were an Adam and Eve or a garden of Eden. The whole story of Genesis 2-3 is symbolic: "Theology must clearly and unambiguously represent 'the Fall' as a symbol for the human situation universally, not just the story of an event that happened 'once upon a time'" (Nessan 1995, 105).

Tillich accepts evolution, although he insists that human nature is qualitatively different from, and at some point in time replaced, animal nature. Animals are selfish, but that is not a fault among them because it is necessary for their survival. Humans, however, in their self-reflection, are aware that all humans share the same right to survival. Selfishness becomes problematic and creates a sense of guilt if it is at the expense of someone else. To further explain the reason for guilt, Tillich introduced the notion of "dreaming innocence," which is not a historical state, but rather "a state of being which potentially belongs to humankind … as a state of pristine perfection … a hypothetical category to account for the sense of anxiety and alienation human beings existentially experience" (Nessan 1995, 112). He calls this state "essence," and claims that original sin is the movement from "essence" to "existence," from hypothetical innocence to existential selfishness and guilt. We are called to become the image of God but have not yet attained it. Craig Nessan further explains:

From a Christian perspective, Jesus Christ has revealed the contours of what it would mean for us to fully attain to the image of God. Jesus lived for God and for others with a self-less love that culminated in his death on the cross. Those who live 'in Christ' press onward toward the future goal of a life transformed into the Christ-like image of God. To become like Christ would be the equivalent of becoming fully human (116).

Herbert Haag  (return to top)

Haag (1969) suggests that the church's doctrine of original sin fills in gaps the scripture left in its own depiction of sin:

… [S]cripture teaches the origin and propagation of sin only so explicitly as to say that after the creation of mankind sin entered the world and spread quickly; the idea of inheriting sin is not a biblical concept. Sin exercises on earth a tyrannical power that only a stronger power can conquer. This stronger power is the salvation of Jesus Christ. Mankind under the power of sin (amartia: Rom. 5:12f., 20f.) is mankind outside of Christ; mankind under the power of grace (charis: Rom. 5:15, 17, 20f.) is mankind in Christ. It can thus be said that the Catholic doctrine of original sin is nothing other than an attempt to describe theologically the situation of mankind outside of Christ (73-74).

A number of sociobiologists believe they can explain the sense of guilt expressed in the myth of Genesis 2-3 by contrasting the tendency of one's biological make-up with the needs of society. Tensions arising between biological and cultural evolution are the sources of "original sin" according to Donald T. Campbell, Ralph Wendel Burhoe Philip Hefner, Patricia A. Williams, and many others. The roots of human behavior are found in pre-human activity, which is primarily survival of oneself and of one's genes. There is much competition in an atmosphere of the survival of the fittest, but also cooperation, especially of animals living in society, to preserve genes at least within the group. Yet when humans evolve to a level of self-consciousness, they are faced not only with their own needs but also with that of others, and the two are often at odds with one another. If one's biological tendency is to fight, flee, or cooperate in a limited way, culture developed from the new consciousness might demand that one might even need to sacrifice oneself for others who are not members of the family or tribe.

Similarly, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki sees original sin in the tendency towards violence which characterizes humans due to their previous evolution. They are called, however, to create a community of well-being, which can be accomplished only through interdependence and the divine power of forgiveness. They need the grace of Christ so that through empathy, memory, and imagination they may bring evolution to the next step, well-being characterized by God's truth, love, and beauty.

Robert Wright  (return to top)

Wright (1994a) points out that according to evolution, men tend to "sow their seeds" far and wide, while women look for strong and healthy mates who would be faithful to them. By way of explanation, Wright quotes evolutionary psychologist George Williams, author of Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966), that "natural selection does not work toward overall social welfare; … much of human nature boils down to ruthless genetic self-interest; … people are naturally oblivious to their ruthlessness" (52). Williams believes that the moral life consists largely of battling human nature. Wright concludes:

… Yes, we are moral. We have at least the technical capacity to lead an examined life: self-awareness, memory, foresight, and judgment. Still, chronically subjecting ourselves to moral scrutiny and adjusting our behavior accordingly is hardly a reflex. We are potentially moral animals—which is more than any other animal can say—but we are not naturally moral animals. The first step to being moral is to realize how thoroughly we aren't (52).

In light of such a judgment, the Christian call to conform to the image of Christ makes a lot of sense. Christianity makes us aware that the ultimate goal of our human existence far exceeds the fulfillment of genetic impulses.

11. "… [T]he primordial multiple is in no way directly sinful; on the other hand, since its gradual unification entails a multitude of tentative probings in the immensities of space-time, it cannot escape (from the moment it ceases to be 'nothing') being permeated by suffering and error. Statistically, in fact in the case of a system which is in process of organization, it is absolutely inevitable … (1) that local disorders appear during the process… and (2) that, from level to level, collective states of disorder result from these elementary disorders (because of the organically interwoven nature of the cosmic stuff). Above the level of life, this entails suffering, and, starting with man, it becomes sin… [Footnote by Teilhard:] This clear-cut statement avoids the ambiguity of certain expressions which might result in evil appearing to be in man the pure statistical result of a process of evolution" (Teilhard 1971, 195).



12. "Omega Point" is a term used by Teilhard to refer to the ultimate Consciousness that is driving the evolutionary process onward in the genesis of spirit. Such an Omega Point would coincide with what revelation tells us of Christ, and so could be identified with Christ. (Teilhard 1971, 143).



13. Order of St. Augustine, Augustinians