We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
1 Wiley, Tatha, Original Sin: Origins, Development, Contemporary Meanings (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2002), 56Google Scholar.
2 Ibid, 74.
3 Also influential were other Pauline formulations. For example in 1 Corinthians 15:22‐23, Paul wrote “As in Adam all men die, so in Christ all will be brought to life; but each in his proper place: Christ the first fruits, and afterwards, at his coming, those who belong to Christ.”
4 Wiley, Original Sin, 56.
5 Ibid, 74.
6 Ibid, 69.
7 Hellwig, Monca, “The Classic Teaching on Original Sin,” in Domning, and Hellwig, , Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 13Google Scholar. It is also important to note that Augustine did distinguish between peccatum originans (the event of original sin) and peccatum originatum (the condition of original sin in humankind), the latter of which included both concupiscence—the tendency toward sin and typified by lust—and suffering, death, and natural disorder in the rest of creation.
8 Korsmeyer, Jerry D., Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original Sin and Contemporary Science, (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1998), 36Google Scholar.
9 Wiley, Original Sin, 72; Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, 38.
10 Wiley, Original Sin, 73; Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, 39‐40.
11 Wiley, Original Sin, 77‐9; Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, 39‐41. Of course, this was part of his larger theory of Atonement, wherein Christ's incarnation was the means of, and redemption the repayment for, satisfying the infinite debt owed to God by Adam's sin.
12 Wiley, Original Sin, 85.
13 Ibid, 91.
14 Ibid, 97.
15 Ibid, 87.
16 Ibid, 95‐6.
17 Ibid, 88. The following account of the Council of Trent is drawn from Wiley, 91‐94.
18 Wiley, Original Sin, 91.
19 Quoted in Mahoney, , Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 4‐5Google Scholar.
20 Daly, Gabriel, “Creation and Original Sin,” in Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ed. Walsh, Michael J., 82‐111. (London: Geoffry Chapman, 1994)Google Scholar.
21 McDermott, Brian O., “Original Sin: Recent Developments” Theological Studies 38 (1977): 478‐512. at 478CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, 58.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid, 59.
25 Mahoney, Christianity in Evolution, 75.
26 de Chardin, Teilhard, Christianity and Evolution (London: Collins, 1971), 51Google Scholar.
27 There were other Dutch theologians pursuing a similar line of inquiring, for example, Ansfried Hulsbosch, O.S.A. Here we focus on Schoonenberg as arguably the most widely influential of this group of thinkers.
28 Wiley, Original Sin, 134.
29 Ibid, 133‐4.
30 Ibid, 132.
31 Schoonenberg, , “Sin and Guilt” in Rahner, Karl, ed. Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 1579‐86, at 1584Google Scholar.
32 Wiley, Original Sin, 136.
33 Schoonenberg, , “Original Sin and Man's Situation,” In The Mystery of Sin and Forgiveness, ed. Taylor, Michael J. (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971), 251Google Scholar.
34 Ibid, God's World in the Making (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1964), 83.
35 Ibid, 33. It should be noted that Schoonenberg also appealed to the Johanine “sin of the world” as an affirmation of the social and ideological dimension of human sinfulness. Cf. John 1:29. Man and Sin: A Theological View, 66.
36 Rahner, , “The Sin of Adam,” 247‐262 Theological Investigations, Vol XI, trans. Bourke, David (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 248Google Scholar.
37 See Rahner, , Hominization: The Evolutionary Origin of Man as a Theological Problem (London:Burns and Oates, 1965). (or. 1958)Google Scholar.
38 McDermott, “Original Sin: Recent Developments,” 482.
39 Rahner, “Evolution and Original Sin,” 61‐73 in J. Metz (ed.), The Evolving World and Theology. Concilium, vol. 26.
40 McDermott, “Original Sin: Recent Developments,” 483.
41 Rahner, “Evolution and Original Sin,” 71.
42 Ibid.
43 McDermott, “Original Sin: Recent Developments” 483.
44 Rahner,“The Sin of Adam,” 256.
45 Rahner, , “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia,” Theological Investigations I (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961), 347‐82Google Scholar.
46 Edwards, Denis, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 65Google Scholar. The following explanation of Rahner's position is drawn from Edwards.
47 Ibid.
48 Rahner, “The Sin of Adam,” 261.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid, 254.
52 Ibid, 259.
53 Ibid, 256.; McDermott, “Original Sin: Recent Developments” 484.
54 Rahner, “The Sin of Adam,” 256.
55 It should be noted that several contemporary Rahnerians have sought to further develop his thought on original sin and evolution. For instance, Denis Edwards explicitly denies that sin can be responsible for all the discrepancy and infallibility that humans experience, and develops his own Rahnerian proposal. See The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology.
56 Ibid, 51.
57 Haught, John, God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,2000), 141Google Scholar.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid, 139.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid, 138.
63 Ibid, 140.
64 Domning, Daryl and Hellwig, Monica, Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), ixGoogle Scholar.
65 Ibid, 16.
66 Ibid, 177.
67 Ibid, 167.
68 Ibid, 178.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid, 173.
71 Ibid, 177.
72 Ibid, 178.
73 Ibid, 142.
74 Ibid, 143. This he argues is a key part of the traditional understanding that is not accounted for by the “cultural transmission” model.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid, 96.
77 Ibid, 98.
78 Ibid, 97.
79 Ibid, 188.
80 Ibid.
81 Mahoney, Christianity in Evolution, 51.
82 Ibid, 64.
83 Ibid, 60.
84 Ibid, 64.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid, 65. Mahoney is also concerned about the pastoral harm that has been done by excessive preoccupation with concupiscence, and this surely contributes to his conclusion. Further, it is not just the doctrine of original sin that should go; he also argues that taking evolution seriously entails abandoning the sacrificial redemption of fallen humanity through propitiary sacrifice, or ‘atonement.’
87 Mahoney, Christianity in Evolution, 94.
88 Ibid, 156.
89 Ibid, 94.
90 Domning and Hellwig, Original Selfishness, 143.
91 Domning, Original Selfishness 190.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid, 191.
94 Perhaps Domning's answers will not be the best, but is it best to bifurcate the tasks of science and theology on the question of origins?
