Just 3 observations on Justice as it relates to Original Sin and the Fall.
From NewAdvent/Original Sin:
3) ........ Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
From Summa:
4:1-11..... "Since angels have in them no matter or bodiliness at all, for they are pure spirit, they are not individuated. This means that each angel is the only one of it's kind. It means that each angel is a species."
1/ Angels cannot be stigmatized with original sin because they are all individual species. Men can because they pass on to children in a hereditary fashion.
But what does natural endowments or lack of have to do with free will and the mechanism that invokes it's use which they are all susceptible to.?
If the species or inheritance is the overriding reason to/not to stigmatize, then any universal court would need to ignore the fact that they are common in the area of persuasion or influence across genus, ie: a spirit kind that found them to have the common trait in the process of decision making, is what occurred, and here I'm referring to satan influencing the other angels to sin.
This rule sets a precedence. It allows that species man cannot be responsible for the sin influenced by species demon, therefore Adam is not culpable based on this principle.
It is evident that the common persuasive element and susceptibility was the platform these cases needed to be handled on. However, when man is the culprit it seems we have a switch of reasoning.
What could be said for the reason of this double standard.? No one knows. It could have something to do with the PR importance that image and the portrayal of these special spiritual servants in a celestial ministry as being above reproach. Scandal would not be welcome here, hence the merital test is placed aside and the permanent removal of the remainder's ability to sin and their beatification.
2/ On another note, is it remarkable that for a mortal species who is capable of making good and bad choices, that we would find the first bad choice being made in the second human being?
Let's place the effects of stigmatization in a different time period. Assume the sin occurred in the third generation of Eve. Prior to this 80 people enjoyed the Garden of Eden and bliss. 120 years after Eve was created someone of her generation makes the wrong choice and eats of the fruit.
Now this person begets 3 children, and they marry from the generation of non-sinning mortals.
Would only one person be cast out of the garden and also any of his later offspring? Would OS stigmatize only that generation from then on? In random mating, would only those who had Mitochondrial DNA linking them to the mother of the sinner be stigmatized? It becomes a logistical celestial nightmare.
You can see where randomness of events and who it involves is unwelcome, rather, it says it MUST happen this way IF they are indeed destined to fail. In the story as it is we are saying that it just happened that Eve was the person who made the wrong choice. Then again can you see the complexity of stigmatization if it occurred any other way?. Would OS be proportioned retroactively from then on.?
How could it have happened any other way. Man was created knowing full well he would make at least some error one day. The contingency plan was how to prepare for that event, and original sin starting with the first generation is the most facile way to carry out the inevitable. When the choice was made makes all the difference.
3/ Lastly, it is surprising that the celestial courts have heard nothing of the intrinsically good proportionate justice as it applies to these two cases. In the first case the technicality "species" becomes a benefit for angels, in the second it becomes a disadvantage. These points are realized at the conception(design stage) of these two creatures.
The court in performing one of it's duties as arbiter in ensuring that every accused is receiving a fair trial has not heard that "the point is to ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by their natural or social endowments.*" Here it is obvious her defense counsel on her behalf would have placed this objection and called for a retrial..... were there a defense council to begin with.:-(
*A Theory of Justice, (Rawls)
Andy
From NewAdvent/Original Sin:
3) ........ Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
From Summa:
4:1-11..... "Since angels have in them no matter or bodiliness at all, for they are pure spirit, they are not individuated. This means that each angel is the only one of it's kind. It means that each angel is a species."
1/ Angels cannot be stigmatized with original sin because they are all individual species. Men can because they pass on to children in a hereditary fashion.
But what does natural endowments or lack of have to do with free will and the mechanism that invokes it's use which they are all susceptible to.?
If the species or inheritance is the overriding reason to/not to stigmatize, then any universal court would need to ignore the fact that they are common in the area of persuasion or influence across genus, ie: a spirit kind that found them to have the common trait in the process of decision making, is what occurred, and here I'm referring to satan influencing the other angels to sin.
This rule sets a precedence. It allows that species man cannot be responsible for the sin influenced by species demon, therefore Adam is not culpable based on this principle.
It is evident that the common persuasive element and susceptibility was the platform these cases needed to be handled on. However, when man is the culprit it seems we have a switch of reasoning.
What could be said for the reason of this double standard.? No one knows. It could have something to do with the PR importance that image and the portrayal of these special spiritual servants in a celestial ministry as being above reproach. Scandal would not be welcome here, hence the merital test is placed aside and the permanent removal of the remainder's ability to sin and their beatification.
2/ On another note, is it remarkable that for a mortal species who is capable of making good and bad choices, that we would find the first bad choice being made in the second human being?
Let's place the effects of stigmatization in a different time period. Assume the sin occurred in the third generation of Eve. Prior to this 80 people enjoyed the Garden of Eden and bliss. 120 years after Eve was created someone of her generation makes the wrong choice and eats of the fruit.
Now this person begets 3 children, and they marry from the generation of non-sinning mortals.
Would only one person be cast out of the garden and also any of his later offspring? Would OS stigmatize only that generation from then on? In random mating, would only those who had Mitochondrial DNA linking them to the mother of the sinner be stigmatized? It becomes a logistical celestial nightmare.
You can see where randomness of events and who it involves is unwelcome, rather, it says it MUST happen this way IF they are indeed destined to fail. In the story as it is we are saying that it just happened that Eve was the person who made the wrong choice. Then again can you see the complexity of stigmatization if it occurred any other way?. Would OS be proportioned retroactively from then on.?
How could it have happened any other way. Man was created knowing full well he would make at least some error one day. The contingency plan was how to prepare for that event, and original sin starting with the first generation is the most facile way to carry out the inevitable. When the choice was made makes all the difference.
3/ Lastly, it is surprising that the celestial courts have heard nothing of the intrinsically good proportionate justice as it applies to these two cases. In the first case the technicality "species" becomes a benefit for angels, in the second it becomes a disadvantage. These points are realized at the conception(design stage) of these two creatures.
The court in performing one of it's duties as arbiter in ensuring that every accused is receiving a fair trial has not heard that "the point is to ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by their natural or social endowments.*" Here it is obvious her defense counsel on her behalf would have placed this objection and called for a retrial..... were there a defense council to begin with.:-(
*A Theory of Justice, (Rawls)
Andy
Last edited:
