ST JOSEPH’S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
101
ST JOSEPH’S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY DEPARTMENT TS 103 – CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY LECTURE NOTES PREPARED BY FR. LEO LAURENCE MARIA JOSEPH, M. AFR. CEDARA JULY - NOVEMBER 2021
Transcript of ST JOSEPH’S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
ST JOSEPH’S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
TS 103 – CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
LECTURE NOTES
PREPARED BY
FR. LEO LAURENCE MARIA JOSEPH, M. AFR.
CEDARA JULY - NOVEMBER 2021
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE
PRELEMINARIES ON CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Modern Scientific Anthropology ............................................................................................ 5
1.3 Christian Theological Anthropology ...................................................................................... 5
1.4 Creation, Grace, Eschatology ................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Jesus Christ and Christian Anthropology ............................................................................... 8
1.6 Why is Christian Anthropology? ............................................................................................ 9
1.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER TWO
CURRENT CHALLENGES AND VARIOUS THEORIES OF CREATION
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 The Meaning of Creation ...................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Current Challenges Related to the Doctrine of Creation ...................................................... 15
2.4 Various Theories of Creation of the Universe ...................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Creatio Ex Nihilo ............................................................................................................ 17
2.4.2 Creatio Ex Divino ........................................................................................................... 19
2.4.3 Creation by Emanation ................................................................................................... 19
2.4.4 Dualist Account of Creation ........................................................................................... 19
2.4.5 Process Theology ............................................................................................................ 20
2.5 How Equipped are we to Face these Challenges? ................................................................ 20
2.6 The Need for a New Perspective .......................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER THREE
CREATION ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Creation in the Old Testament .............................................................................................. 26
3.2.1 Two Biblical Accounts of Creation ................................................................................ 26
3.2.2 The Origin of the Two Accounts of Creation ................................................................. 27
3.2.3 The First Account of Creation (Gen 1:1-2:4a) ............................................................... 27
3.2.4 An Exegetical Note on the Priestly Account .................................................................. 28
3.3 Emphasis on the Human Soul ............................................................................................... 31
3.4 Focus on human external appearance/Analogy of Form ...................................................... 31
3.5 Focus on active Caretaking of God's Creation ...................................................................... 31
3.6 Focus on Humanity as such .................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER FOUR
THE PLACE OF HUMAN BEINGS IN RELATION TO GOD AND CREATION
4.1 The Origin of the First Man .................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Created in The Image of God (Imago Dei) ........................................................................... 33
4.3 The Essential Elements of Man ............................................................................................ 34
4.4 Monogenism and Polygenism ............................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER FIVE
CREATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Creation or Evolution: A False Dichotomy? ......................................................................... 38
5.3 Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) .......................................................................................... 40
5.4 Charles Darwin (+1882) ........................................................................................................ 42
5.5 Reconciling Religion and Science with Regard to Creation ................................................. 44
CHAPTER SIX
ORIGINAL SIN
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 46
6.2 What Precisely is Original Sin? ............................................................................................ 46
6.3 Scriptural Basis for The Dogma of Original Sin .................................................................. 46
6.3.1 Old Testament on Original Sin (peccatum originale originans) .................................... 47
6.3.2 Original Sin from the New Testament Perspective ........................................................ 48
6.4 Church Fathers on Original Sin ............................................................................................ 49
6.4.1 Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyons .............................................................................................. 49
6.4.2 Tertullian on Original Sin ............................................................................................... 50
6.4.3 Clement of Alexandria.................................................................................................... 51
6.4.4 St. Augustine of Hippo on Original Sin ......................................................................... 51
6.4.5 Peter Abelard .................................................................................................................. 54
6.4.6 Anselm of Canterbury .................................................................................................... 54
6.5 Original Sin in the Teachings of Councils ............................................................................ 54
6.5.1 The Council of Carthage (418) ....................................................................................... 54
6.5.2 The Council of Orange on Original Sin.......................................................................... 55
6.5.3 The Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Original Sin ................................................... 56
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE MYSTERY OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND EVIL
7.1 The Question Evil and Suffering .......................................................................................... 59
7.2 The Relationship Between Sin and Suffering ....................................................................... 60
7.3 Suffering and Contingency ................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF LAST THINGS
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 63
8.2 Death ..................................................................................................................................... 64
8.2.1 Notion of Death .............................................................................................................. 64
8.2.2 Cause and Origin of Death ............................................................................................. 65
8.2.3 The Universality of Death .............................................................................................. 66
8.2.4 Death as End of the Time to Gain Merits ....................................................................... 67
8.2.5 The Condition of the Separated Soul .............................................................................. 68
8.3 Particular Judgement ............................................................................................................. 69
8.3.1 Existence of the Particular Judgment ............................................................................. 69
8.3.2 The Nature of the Particular Judgment ........................................................................... 71
8.3.3 Immediate Execution of the Sentence ............................................................................ 71
8.4 Purgatory ............................................................................................................................... 72
8.4.1 Existence of Purgatory.................................................................................................... 72
8.4.2 The Nature of Purgatory ................................................................................................. 73
8.4.3 Properties of the Pains of Purgatory ............................................................................... 74
8.5 Hell ........................................................................................................................................ 76
8.5.1 Existence of Hell ............................................................................................................ 76
8.5.2 The Nature of Hell .......................................................................................................... 78
8.5.3 The Pains of Hell ............................................................................................................ 78
8.5.4 Properties of the Pains of Hell: Eternity and Inequality ................................................. 80
8.6 Heaven .................................................................................................................................. 81
8.6.1 Existence of Heaven ....................................................................................................... 81
8.6.2 The Nature of Heaven..................................................................................................... 81
8.6.3 The Nature of the Direct Vision of God ......................................................................... 82
8.6.4 Necessity and Nature of the Lumen Gloriae .................................................................. 83
8.6.5 Beatific Vision and Happiness ....................................................................................... 84
8.6.6 The Glorification of God and the Beatific Vision .......................................................... 85
8.6.7 The Inequality of Blessedness ........................................................................................ 85
8.7 Limbo: The State of those Who Die Without Personal Sin .................................................. 86
8.8 Second Coming of Christ ...................................................................................................... 88
8.8.1 Christ Will Come Again ................................................................................................. 88
8.8.2 Christ Coming as Judge .................................................................................................. 88
8.8.3 The Parousia ................................................................................................................... 89
8.8.4 Nature of the Second Coming of Christ ......................................................................... 89
8.8.5 The Signs of the Coming of Our Lord ............................................................................ 90
8.9 Resurrection of the Dead ...................................................................................................... 92
8.9.1 The Truth of the Resurrection ........................................................................................ 92
8.9.2 The Resurrection of the Body ......................................................................................... 92
8.9.3 The Reality of the Resurrection ...................................................................................... 92
8.9.4 Nature of the Resurrection .............................................................................................. 93
8.9.5 Qualities of the Resurrected Bodies ............................................................................... 94
8.10 Final Judgement and the Renewal of the World ................................................................. 96
8.10.1 The Final Judgment ...................................................................................................... 96
8.10.2 The Total Renewal of the World .................................................................................. 98
CHAPTER ONE
PRELIMINARIES ON CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
1.1 Introduction
This course on “Christian Anthropology” 1is the first of a three-part treatment of theological
anthropology. As you know, in general terms, the word “anthropology’’ means the study of human
beings. Christian Anthropology is a theological approach to the human being. What makes it
“theological” is its attempt to understand the human being from the point of view of God’s plan in
as much as we can discern and describe it. The second part deals with “original sin and grace,”
while the third is devoted to “eschatology”. Since in SJTI the students will study the Theology of
Christian Salvation along with the Blessed Trinity course [TS 210] in the second year, the current
course will not delve much into the issue of grace and salvation.
1.2 Modern Scientific Anthropology
The word “anthropology” itself means the study of human beings (anthropoi). There are various
kinds of anthropology: while all seek to understand the human being in the most general sense,
they differ in their scope and methodology. Probably the best-known form of “anthropology’’ is
not a theological discipline but the modern “scientific” anthropology. As an academic discipline it
is relatively recent. It probably began with the study by European natural scientists of the
populations of colonized lands, with early scientific anthropologists studying these peoples much
as other scientists would have been studying the plants and animals of those lands. As it evolved
into its modern form, the study of anthropology found itself somewhere between the natural
sciences, the humanities and the social sciences. It is a very broad subject, exploring the human
species from its biological dimensions to its linguistic and symbolic dimensions to its religious
expressions. In principle, anything that illuminates human existence is potentially of interest to
scientific anthropology. Two of the more well-known of the subdivisions within modern
anthropology are physical anthropology and cultural anthropology. The former (which is sometimes
also called biological anthropology) studies such matters as the evolution of human beings from
their primate ancestors. Cultural anthropology (also known as social anthropology) studies a
variety of factors of human life, such as rituals, social organization, kinship patterns, gender and
so on. Given its scientific methodological commitments, scientific anthropology is
methodologically bound within the realm of the strictly quantifiable, measurable, and verifiable
dimensions of the human reality. Thus, even if it shows an interest in symbolic dimensions of
human life, such as religion, it is committed to approaching these on an empirical basis. In recent
times, science and technology has evolved so much that new theories are being developed
concerning the origin of human species, the galaxies, stars, ecosystem and the universe as a whole.
New planets are being discovered as the space is being explored by scientists. The new discoveries
continue to challenge the Christian theology of creation. The following section will briefly
introduce the importance of Christian Theological Anthropology as a distinctive subject.
1.3 Christian Theological Anthropology
1 The use of MAN as a generic term include both men and women. It is in this interpretation that the course note will
use man to indicate both men and women.
Theological anthropology also focusses on the human being in a very general sense, but is bound
by different methodological limits, appropriate to its status as a field of theological studies. It is a
branch of Christian theology. Just as Christology is the part of theology that deals with Jesus Christ,
and ecclesiology is the part of theology that deals with the church, so theological anthropology is
the part of theology that deals with the theological understanding of human beings, of human
existence, in its relation to God. Thematically, although it shares an interest in the human being in
the most general sense with scientific anthropologies, it reflects on themes that are not available to
scientific anthropologies, such as God’s plan for the human being, human sin, grace, and the
ultimate destiny of human beings. Methodologically too, it draws on sources unavailable to
scientific anthropology, the Bible as revelation and the history of developing interpretations of the
biblical data reflected in the theological tradition and magisterial statements.
The differences between the two areas of study reflect the differences in scope and method between
science and theology in general. With regard to the questions asked, for instance, theological
anthropology claims to be able to go further and deeper than the modern scientific anthropology.
The methodology of modern scientific anthropology makes it difficult to consider human beings
in their transcendence, since scientific method leads us to consider only observable and measurable
phenomena. Theological anthropology, in contrast, recognizes that many questions of meaning
cannot be adequately approached with scientific method, because much of what would help people
to understand themselves and their world cannot be captured by such a method. Theological
anthropology can and does ask what we call ultimate questions about human beings. With regard
also to sources theological anthropology is distinguished from scientific anthropology. Scientific
methodology typically aims at a kind of objectivity that attempts to stand outside traditions and
history. According to the method which is proper to theology the theological anthropology attempts
to answer these ultimate questions precisely within a history or a tradition.
The key sources of theological anthropology are precisely the kinds of resource that we need for
asking questions about meaning. The basic sources of theology, after all, are narrative sources.
They recount the lives and experiences of human beings, of their attempts at grasping meaning, of
their relationships among themselves and with God. This is why we look to the Bible, in the first
place, for the beginnings of our answers to these questions, for it is a fundamental document in our
(Judeo-Christian) tradition. There we find narrative accounts of how human beings were brought
into existence, how they are related to God, and how to understand what will happen to them after
they die. As we will see, despite differences, it is important to avoid thinking that theological
anthropology offers an approach to the human being that is an alternative to that which is offered
by modern scientific approaches, whether the science in question be anthropology, physics,
evolutionary biology or whatever. While it can be tempting to think of the biblical tradition as
offering the definitive truth about the human being, any attempt to counterpose theological
anthropology to other forms of anthropology should be resisted. One of the most important
characteristics of the Catholic tradition is its strong sense of the need to keep both faith and reason
in the right sort of balance. In our contemporary world, science offers some of the most important
fruits of human reason, and a theological anthropology cannot simply ignore its acquisitions. The
distinctively Catholic approach of attending to both faith and reason will help determine our
approach to the particular sources of theological anthropology. In dealing with our various topics,
we will be attentive not just to what the Bible says and what biblical scholarship tells us about how
to understand it, but also to question about how this relates to what science is telling us today.
To give an example, one of the topics covered in the second course on theological anthropology is
that of original sin. In approaching the biblical data about this, some of our questions will touch on
whether there really was a first human couple. What does science tell us about the probability that
there was a first human couple? If science discourages us from taking the story as a literal account
of what happened, what happens to our understanding of the biblical account and the doctrine of
original sin that grew from it (in the Western tradition)? Of course, the voice of reason is not only
heard in the modern sciences. It is also heard, for example, in modern biblical scholarship. You are
already familiar with the general approach used in contemporary biblical scholarship, and know
the importance of recognizing the type of literature they offer. We need to learn to read these
stories, as much as possible, with a sense of what they meant to their authors and original audience.
If we do this we will find that they were not written in order to answer scientific questions, or
questions of exact historiography. If we read them with the wrong questions in mind, then we will
certainly go astray. Quite a number of the difficulties involved in Christian theological
anthropology as we will see both in dealing with creation and with eschatology derive from
mistaken attempts to make the Bible answer questions that it does not set out to address.
1.4 Creation, Grace, Eschatology
Before coming to focus on the topic of this course, Christian Anthropology, let us make some brief
observations about the contribution of the three topics (creation, grace, eschatology) to the overall
project of understanding the human being in relation to God’s plans, and their interrelationship.
The first part of the course deals with the idea of “creation”. One of our principal tasks will be to
arrive at some sense of the complexity of this idea. At first sight, “creation” appears to be about
the origins of the world in general and of human beings in particular. It appears to answer questions
regarding the meaning of human life expressed in terms of origin: “Where do we come from?”
The theme of “creation” is indeed about where we come from, and as such is surely an important
part of any comprehensive approach to understanding human existence. But there is much more to
the idea of creation than simply the matter of origins. It will be helpful to note, here at the outset,
that in its most complete sense the idea of creation points to the way in which the creature is related
to the Creator in God’s plan. This relationship (Creator - creature) goes beyond the matter of
origins. The relationship is ongoing; it is not interrupted when the creature comes into existence.
The relationship of creatures to their Creator continues throughout the life or integral existence of
the creature, and continues into a future where God’s plans come to fruition or full expression.
Creation is not, in brief, just about origins, but in its fullest sense is about the relationship of
creatures to the Creator in their origins, their current existence and even into their future.
This future is often invoked in questioning about the meaning of human existence. Thus, when
people ask “Where do we come from?” they often continue with the question “Where are we
going?” Although, as mentioned, there is a future dimension to the idea of creation itself, this is
more fully explored in the third part of the course on Christian Anthropology which is
“Eschatology”. In its most general sense, eschatology deals with Christian Hope: what we can hope
for. The future referred to here has many dimensions: the future of the world in general, the future
of the individual human being and of human beings collectively after death (heaven, hell,
purgatory), but also questions of how to think of Christians of those dimensions of hope that apply
to this world in its historical existence, including questions of political theology and so on. If the
first part of the course is on theological anthropology which deals with the meaning of human
existence with particular reference to origins, and the third deals with the meaning of human
existence with special reference to the future, then the second part is most attentive to the “middle”
dimension, namely the meaning of human existence in its actual historical existence in life as we
know it and experience it. A key issue that conditions our actual historical existence is that of sin.
According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God did not create sin, though it emerged as a
possibility within God’s plans – since God made human beings to be free. The part of the course
deals with the way in which the relationship of God and human beings is expressed in the real-life
situation of sinful humanity, with the expression of God’s continued commitment to this
relationship despite the unfaithfulness or immaturity of human beings in this relationship. This
course will therefore deal with the “Fall” of humanity from God’s original creative plan. This theme
of the “Fall” has been most famously expressed by the Western doctrine of “original” sin, but we
will and also give some attention to how the reality that this doctrine intends to describe is dealt
with in Eastern Christian traditions.
The dominant theme of this second part of the course on Christian Anthropology will be “grace,”
which is the way in which theology has thematized the ongoing faithfulness of God to His creative
design. Thus, if the course on “creation” focusses on God’s plan in a pure form, the course on grace
focusses on the matter of how this plan is being brought about in spite of the reality of human sin,
on how despite the historical experience of a human “No,” God’s “Yes” persists. In all of this, the
theme of human freedom and its relation to God’s love comes to the fore. As already mentioned
earlier that the aspect of grace will be dealt later on in the course on the Blessed Trinity and the
Theology of Christian Salvation.
All three of these courses work together to give us a general picture of the Christian understanding
of the human being from the theological point of view. We will observe that there is a great degree
of overlap and dialogue between the three focal points of our study of the theological understanding
of the human being, and this will be so especially as we move forward.2
1.5 Jesus Christ and Christian Anthropology
At the heart of Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ, and it is in relation to him that we will
consistently find the heart of our reflections about the human being, whether in our treatment of
creation, grace or eschatology. In Jesus, Christians recognize the highest expression of God's
relationship with human beings, but also the highest expression of the human relationship with
God. In our treatment of these themes we will be especially attentive to the relation of Jesus to the
themes of Christian Anthropology. This can offer us an orientation as to the relative importance of
the various components of these courses. We must consider that the topics will not always involve
any mention of Jesus Christ, they will always be oriented towards a reflection on the place of Jesus
Christ in God’s plan for humanity, or indeed a reflection on God’s plan for humanity in the light of
Jesus Christ. Thus, for example, although part of the current course on creation will involve talk of
the acquisitions of modern science, or another part of the current course will involve talk of the
2 A general discussion of Christian anthropology is found in MICHAEL J. SCANLON, “Christian Anthropology,” in
New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Joseph Komonchak- Mary Collins – Dermot Lane, (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan,
1987).
non-Christian Greek philosophical tradition, we should bear in mind that our task is not to
understand these parts in themselves, but in as much as they ultimately relate to Jesus Christ.
The Christian tradition has always known that the coming of the Eternal Son of God as a man in
1st century Palestine radically alters our understanding of humanity as a whole. This conviction
was restated in the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes:
The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For
Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final
Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself
and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned
truths find their root and attain their crown. (§22)
This conviction underlies the entirety of a properly Christian theological anthropology. In this
regard, let me offer a possible explanation of why the centrality of Jesus Christ in theological
anthropology is not always highlighted or even recognized. Might it not be that we are used to
thinking of Jesus Christ as “God,” and consequently of attending more to how he is different to
ordinary human beings? If we assume that the Church’s Christology implies that we should think
of Jesus above all as different to other human beings, then it will be natural to be surprised at the
idea that Jesus is central in theological anthropology. The Church’s Christology, however, is not
just about a divine Jesus, but also about a fully human divine Son of God [hypostatic union]. To
the extent that this is recognized, the centrality of Jesus Christ in a Christian theological
anthropology will become clear.
While this course will not make constant and explicit reference to Jesus Christ, the project of
exploring theological anthropology in the light of the Incarnation remains central. The core of
Christian faith is that God became a man. From the point of view of theological anthropology this
belief offers a key to understanding what is particular to the Christian understanding of humanity
as such. How does creation or the world in general, and of human beings in particular point to the
Christ event? How do we conceive of the human relationship with God, despite the reality of sin
in the light of the Christ event? How do we understand the future and destiny in the light of the
Christ event? In relation to all of these questions, the effort is made to take the fact of the
Incarnation as the key to interpreting what human existence in general is all about. If Christ reveals
“man [sic] to himself,” what does this mean for our understanding of human existence?
1.6 Why is Christian Anthropology?
Some might be tempted to wonder whether it is worth devoting so much of time to the theological
understanding of the human being. Perhaps someone thinks that theology is devoted primarily to
the study of the mystery of God (since that is what the word seems to indicate, theo-logos), while
the human being is what we already know. For Thomas of Aquinas, however, theology need not be
about God but can also be about all things as related to God. He writes: “In sacred science, all
things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they
refer to God as their beginning and end.”3 In theological anthropology we treat of things which are
not “God Himself” but things (human beings specifically) in as much as they refer to God as their
3 Summa Theologiae 1, 7 corp.
beginning and end. Such talk about human beings, however, places the relationship with God as
beginning and end to the fore, something not possible for scientific anthropology. This places
Christian Anthropology squarely within the terms of reference of theology as such. What we will
find as we move through the course on Christian Anthropology is that the reference to God in
Christ as beginning and end remains constant. What lies behind the idea of producing a theological
anthropology? Why is it so important that there should be a distinctively theological anthropology?
Anthropology concerns itself with understanding human experience. Theology is concerned with
God. God and humanity should the two not be left in quite separate compartments? Some would
wish to leave ‘God’ in a remote ‘ivory tower’. They want to get on with the business of human life
without having to be bothered with a ‘God’ who is, for them, a complete irrelevance. Others pride
themselves on their theological orthodoxy while showing little interest in getting to grips with the
many sided complexities of human experience. There is a real need for an anthropology, which
adopts a distinctively theological point of view. There are questions such as; Where did the universe
come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there evil in the world? How do
we deal with the problem of evil in our lives? What happens when we die? Are there rewards and
punishments after death? Creation, sin and grace, redemption, life after death, these are the great
questions to which the Christian tradition responds and with which Christian theology struggles.
This module “Christian anthropology” represents an attempt to articulate a response to the above
very important questions. In a foundational course such as this is possible only to scratch the surface
of a number of issues that deserve deeper consideration.
Any attempt to write a theological anthropology is a bold undertaking. Ours is a time when nothing
can be taken for granted. Many, who write about the meaning of human experience, would be
entirely dismissive of the very idea of God. Perhaps in previous generations, more could be taken
for granted. This is certainly not the case now. The present generation has been described in
different ways such as post-Christian and post-modern. In a time when many will listen only to
what they ‘want to hear’, there is a widespread ‘turning away from the truth’ (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Writing a theological anthropology requires courage to say things that few other commentators on
human life are saying, the courage to make statements which are unlikely to be well received within
the academic community. As such, one of the challenging questions today especially in an age of
Science and Technology is the question of the origin and the destiny of the cosmos. An integral
part of the Christian faith is that we believe in a Creator God; as we profess in our Creed: “We
believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is, seen and unseen”.
Indeed, one of the greatest and continuing problems of Christian belief in God is presented by the
difficulty of relating the concept of God to the world of nature and history as understood by the
modern scientific mind. Can we still speak about a creator God in the twenty-first century? Is the
world dependent on God? Can God act in the world? Does God intervene? Does the world need
God at all?
Since the Enlightenment the physical world has been perceived as being autonomous based on
mechanics, physics and mathematics. To many people, the rise of Darwinism and the modern
conception of natural evolution in the 19th century completed this view of the natural world and
definitively excluded all reference to a creator from the description of the reality of nature. Modern
science (following on from Copernicus, Galileo and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity)
seemingly has no need of the hypothesis of God to explain the origins and running of the universe.
One finds that in the modern scientific world view the idea of God is superfluous. The world of
nature does not need the continuous activity of a creator God. The world is self-sufficient according
to science since the dawn of Enlightenment period. Contemporary culture is dominated by the
scientific mode of interpreting the universe and the world as the outcome of impersonal
mechanisms. Furthermore, the Christian doctrine of creation seems to have been discredited by the
Church’s reaction to the Galileo and Darwin episodes. So how can we still maintain belief today
in a creator God? That is the challenge facing us in this course. How do we speak meaningfully to
a contemporary, scientifically minded age? This is the challenge we are talking about. The
challenge is all the more acute in 2020 because of the rising popularity in the media of the so-called
«New Atheists»: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens with their
bestselling popular books have spearheaded the movement now known as the «New Atheism».
There are also the new scientific discoveries in the field of astronomy which questions the Church’s
traditional understanding of the universe, creation, galaxy and etc. The continuous search for life
outside the earth as well as the possibility of migrating to moon or to another planet is part and
parcel of current scientific research. There has been a number of studies concerning the
unidentified flying objects known as UFO as well as the search to reach out to other intelligent
beings in the universe out there [perhaps]. The idea of extra-terrestrial life may sound
entertainment, but more and more there are convincing research going on in the world which
certainly challenge our Christian understanding of creation, universe, human beings etc. Thus, this
course is very important which will lay foundation for other theological courses
1.7 Conclusion
Before we examine the biblical doctrine of creation, a few general observations are necessary.
a) A definition: The term, creation, expresses the way in which the world and everything pertaining
to the world have their origin, permanent ground, and final goal in God. We can mean, actively,
the creative action of God and, passively, the totality of the world. The essential to the notion of
creation is the idea of ontological dependence: the ultimate ground of being of every being and of
every aspect of that being, including its becoming or evolution is God.
b) Pastoral relevance of the doctrine of Creation: The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly
defines the importance of catechesis on creation. The following text is very rich which we must
consider
“Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human
existence: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic questions that
men [sic] of all times have asked themselves: ‘Where do we come from?’ “Where are we
going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come
from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second
about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life
and actions” (CCC 282).
As this text from The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to suggest, the doctrine of creation
has an existential significance. Unlike the sciences that speak only to our minds, it touches every
aspect of our lives. The doctrine of creation throws light on the very meaning and purpose of human
existence. Hence, it is of decisive importance for every human being living on this earth.
c) Creation and World Religions: Even though we find the doctrine of creation in the Bible,
beginning with the very first page of the book of Genesis, this doctrine is by no means an exclusive
heritage of the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is common to all the religions of the world.
This should come as no surprise to us, because it is an explicit teaching of the Catholic Church. As
the First Vatican Council states in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: “The same
Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be
certainly known by the light of human reason, by means of created things...” (DS 3004). What we
can know by reason reflecting on the beauty and perfection of the world is, not only God's existence
and his natural attributes, but also the fact that he is “the beginning of all things” namely the creator.
It is no wonder, therefore, that both world-religions and quite a few philosophers who never came
into contact with the Jewish-Christian revelation developed some idea of creation. This doctrine
can be said to belong, not to the special revelation addressed to Israel and the Church (the Bible),
but to the so called ‘natural’ revelation offered by God to all the peoples of the world.
d) Faith in Creation: If this is the case, why does the Bible teach the doctrine of creation? Again,
why did the Church bother to turn this teaching into a religious belief by including it in her
profession of faith and in dogma? As the Creed says, we do not simply know about creation: we
“believe” in God as the creator of heaven and earth. The basic answer to this question is, of course,
not of the cognitive but of the existential type, in the sense explained above. To “believe” in God
the creator implies a lot more than mental acknowledgment of an objective fact. Between the two
statements, ‘My car was made by Toyota,’ and ‘The World was made by God,’ there is nothing in
common except the verb, ‘made’ and even that in a purely analogical sense. My car may well have
come from a Toyota factory, but once I have paid for, it becomes my property. I can do what I want
with it. If, on the contrary, I say that the world was created by God and I with the world, there is
no way I can pay my debt back to God and claim it as my property. Hence, I can never do what I
want with myself. In this sense, mental acknowledgment of ontological dependence on God carries
with it an acknowledgment of moral dependence. If I came from God, I belong to him and must do
as He tells me to do: I have forfeited my freedom. It follows that only a person who is ready to say,
‘I accept God as my master’ can say ‘I acknowledge the fact that God is my creator’. From the
level of knowledge, we have shifted to the more basic level of freedom. As it appears, far from
being a neutral matter of information as in the case of my car, creation is a matter of faith, because
it implies the free acceptance of God as my supreme Lord and master, namely obedience.
e) Creation as an object of Divine Revelation: The question of why creation is a matter of faith
can, however, be answered also from the purely cognitional point of view of revelation. In this
case, a distinction should be made. First, according to Vat I, echoed by Vat. II, the word of God
[here we use the term in the sense of a strictly supernatural revelation] does not confine itself to
disclosing things that are beyond the horizon of human knowledge. Sometimes it does reveal
mysteries, e.g. the Incarnation and the Trinity, but very often it deals with “naturally knowable
truths”. In Vat I's words: “It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation that such truths among things
divine as of themselves are not beyond human reason can, even in the present condition of mankind,
be known by everyone with facility, with firm assurance, and with no admixture of error” (DS
3005; DV 6). It is true that myths are normally accounts of creation (Eliade), but that does not mean
that in myth the doctrine of creation is contained “with no admixture of error”. For example, in the
well-known Babylonian myth Enuma Elish which may well have influenced the sacred writers, as
we shall see that creation is expressed in terms of a polytheistic, dualistic and pessimistic world-
view. We owe it to divine revelation, therefore, if this doctrine can be known (a) by all, (b) with
firm assurance, and (c) with no admixture of error. But the word of God does more than simply
repeat a traditional universally known doctrine in correct form. It goes beyond it and adds elements
that exceed the capacity of the human mind. For this reason, there is in the biblical teaching on
creation an element of strictly supernatural revelation, that can be accepted only by faith.
f) Creation in Revelation and in Philosophy: How can we distinguish these two factors in the
biblical tradition? The criterion can be derived from what modern theology considers the specific
character of the Jewish and Christian revelations. As Fundamental Theology tells us, Old
Testament revelation is essentially ‘historical,’ while New Testament revelation is mediated
through Christ while retaining its essentially historical character. By applying these two criteria,
we will be in a position to distinguish what, in the Jewish and Christian conceptions of creation,
comes directly from the word of God from what both Jews and Christians may have borrowed from
the common religious or philosophical heritage of humankind. Because the Jewish mind works
historically, it follows different routes from the Greek mind. For example, a philosopher begins
with the world; a close examination of the world brings to light ontological perfection and
ontological imperfection; by reflecting on both these elements he concludes that world-contingency
calls for a transcendent ontological ground, while world-perfection leads to analogical knowledge
of this transcendent ground. In this way, philosophy establishes the existence of God, of his inner
attributes, and of the fact that the world is metaphysically dependent on Him as on its ultimate
ground. Notice the train of thoughts: the world comes first; God is known last. With the Jewish
mind the process is reversed: God is known first, the world as creature comes last. Because
revelation is historical, God is not the object of rational inference but is encountered immediately
in himself, as he acts on behalf of his people. God's salvific activity is experienced directly in
history; his creative activity is only the logical implication of his saving activity. God the Saviour
comes first; God the Creator comes last.
g) From the God of History to the God of Creation: Through history, Yahweh gradually shows
himself to be, not only the God of Israel, but also the God of all nations, and hence the universal
Lord. His control is not confined to one land and one people but knows no boundaries: Yahweh's
power is absolute. Hence, the Jews conclude, there is only one God: the idols of the nations are
nothing. But how can this one God exercise a power that is so universal and absolute? On one
condition, namely that everything which exists was created by him. Only if everything came from
him, can we understand why he is in full, absolute control of everything. Hence the conclusion:
God is the creator of the world. The steps involved in this type of reasoning, which is as historical
as it is rigorously logical, are basically four:
Yahweh is the saviour of Israel, and therefore her God, (the historical experiences of
election, Exodus, Covenant);
this, however, does not rule out the possibility that other peoples and nations may have
their gods. It is this intermediary stage of Israel's religious consciousness, normally referred
to as henotheism or monolatry (we have only one God and worship him alone; the gods of
the nations may well exist, but we have nothing to do with them), that a historical revelation
is meant to overcome.
The long process of purification of God's image reaches its goal only in the exile, when
Yahweh shows himself to be in full control of human history even outside of Israel's
territorial boundaries (the historical experience of Cyrus, a pagan king, whom Yahweh
raises to a position of world domination and uses as his ‘anointed’ for the liberation of
Israel.) Hence the conclusion: Yahweh is the only God: strict monotheism.
As soon as this goal is achieved, the Jewish mind can jump to the conclusion: Yahweh is
the creator of heaven and earth.
Ample evidence of this can be found in Deutero Isaiah a prophet who, significantly enough, lived
in the exile and promised the end of the exile. In a single chapter (Is 45) we find all the above four
points:
1) “Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one,
to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand,
to make the nations bow before him...” (45: I).
“He will rebuild my city
and bring my exiles home” (45:13)
YAHWEH'S UNIVERSAL POWER SHOWN IN HISTORY
2) “I am Yahweh, and there is no other,
there is no other God except me” (45:5)
MONOTHEISM
3) “For thus says Yahweh, the Creator of the heavens
he is God, who shaped the earth and made it,
who set it firm;
he did not create it to be chaos,
he formed it to be lived in” (45:18) -- (notice the parallel with Gn 1:1).
CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
This universalistic perspective, resulting from the fact that Yahweh is the universal creator
because he is the only God, immediately gives rise to Israel's missionary awareness:
4) “Turn to me and you will be saved,
all you ends of the earth,
for I am God and there is no other.
By my own self I swear it...
All shall bend the knee to me,
by me every tongue shall swear,
saying, ‘In Yahweh alone
are saving justice and strength.’” (45:22-24).
The presence of all these thoughts within one and the same chapter, and the swiftness with which
the author grasps their missionary implications show how, even for Israel, the doctrine of creation
had an existential significance, motivating her to overcome the narrow particularism that the very
notion of a revelation through history had engendered. Thus, the course on Christian Anthropology
will certainly lay foundation for other theological disciplines. The following chapters will expound
on the Biblical and Doctrinal development of Christian Anthropology.
CHAPTER TWO
CURRENT CHALLENGES AND VARIOUS THEORIES OF CREATION
2.1 Introduction
The Christian Anthropology course deals with the question regarding how the world came into
existence and what it means to be human. In this regard, we will expound in a systematic way, the
Christian doctrines of creation and original sin. In doing so, we will be able to perceive grace as
the presence of the transforming love of God in history. Moreover, we would like to develop a
positive view about God’s providential activities in the world.
This course constitutes a conversation that engages theology with anthropology and the other
sociological and scientific disciplines. Traditionally, we define theology as faith seeking
understanding, fides quaerens intellectum, or the understanding of the faith, intellectus fidei.
Theology is specifically about God and (his relation to) humankind. Anthropology is human
person’s explanation of him/herself, the reflection of his/her own being, a being that is never simply
at hand as a given datum, but always presented itself as a question. Stated with other words
man/woman has always been the source of inquiry into him/herself. In this inquiry, man/woman
takes into account his/her wholeness as a person, his/her relationship with God as a covenant
partner and as a member of a community, his/her creatureliness, his/her responsibility, his/her
consciousness of sin and his/her hope for salvation. Therefore, theology and anthropology are
necessarily related.
The doctrine of creation and its subsequent doctrine of original sin are a theological response to
the foundational religious, philosophical, and scientific questions regarding the origin, purpose and
destiny of creation and the presence of the reality of evil in the world. We will strive to establish
how God relates to the question of not only origin, purpose and destiny of creation but also of the
reality of evil. It is important to note that the doctrine of creation is also called Protology. Protology
concerns itself with the doctrine about the first things (Creation and the Fall), just as eschatology
deals with the last things. Nevertheless, protology and eschatology are intimately linked to each
other. This is so since the future is that for the sake of which God created the world and all in it.
2.2 The Meaning of Creation
The word creation denotes the divine activity of originating, forming, and newly forming (Gen
1; Is 43:1; 45:7) as well as what results from this activity. Creation has implicit roots in the human
desire to understand what it means to exist, where does one come from and where he or she is
going and for what purpose is he or she created. Before we explore various theories related to the
creation of the universe, it is important to have an overview of the current challenges facing the
Christian doctrine of creation.
2.3 Current Challenges Related to the Doctrine of Creation
The following are some of the current challenges to the Doctrine of Creation.
a. The reconsideration of the various views on creation as the result of postmodern thinking:
Postmodern (master) narratives seem to advocate for particularity, plurality and individuation
rather than uniformalization. The various theories on creation present themselves not only as
contradictions to the Christian doctrine on creation, but also provide confusing alterative
explanations for the existence of the world.
b. One of the challenges originates from the discoveries of the modern sciences and the views from
other religions. According to Zachary Hayes, “in our everyday experience we live in a culture
deeply conditioned by insights and theories of modern Science. But in the context of the church,
its theology and liturgy, we live in a premodern world.”4 For this reason, he argues that Christian
theology needs an effective cosmology that enables believers to relate to the world in its physical
character in a way that is consistent with their religious symbols.5 It is a fact that theology dialogues
with science in order to come up with information regarding the concrete flow of evolutionary
history.6 Yet, on the other hand, science cannot provide the framework for interpreting the ultimate
levels of meaning. It is therefore the proper task for theology to establish ultimate meaning about
reality.
c. Ecological Crisis: The critics of Christian tradition, such as Jüngen Moltmann blame Christianity
for the ecological crisis.7 Christianity teaches that humans being are created in the image and
likeness of God (Gen 1:26) and are to exercise dominion over all the other creatures. One could
also name problems such as anthropocentricism: the view that the world exists for the service of
the needs of human beings; the denial of interconnectedness and the problem of racism. It is also
sad to note that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor (see Rerum Novarum,
Laborem exercens and Quadragesimo Anno), which is attributed to the negative consequences of
globalization could to a large extent be seen as misinterpretation of Gen 1:26. In his critique of
globalization, Cardinal Francis George believes that such a phenomenon is motivated, “by the
search for the economic profit as the highest human goal and the definition of the human being as
a consumer.”8 Accordingly, globalization has contributed to the widening of the gap between the
rich and the poor through what one may term as exclusion and exploitation instead of inclusion in
the growing wealth.
d. Moreover, the context in which we live today has undergone a number of changes and challenges
that calls for a new way of rethinking and interpreting the doctrine of creation. The memories of
holocaust of the Jews, genocide in Rwanda, the outbreak of HIV and AIDS pandemic, the danger
of chemical/biological and nuclear weapons or warfare in Syria, the environmental crisis, the
ambitious scientific researches such as stem cell research, and the widening gap between the first
world and third world. The current COVID 19 pandemic and other threats continue to cause
anxiety, despair rather than hope.
4 Ilia Delio, Christ in Evolution. New York: Maryknoll, 2008, 21-22. 5 Ibid., 22. 6 It is noteworthy that theology does not depend on scientific inquiry for the validity of its truth. However, theology
dialogues with science in order to demonstrate fully how the truth that the physical sciences have established is a mere
explication of the already revealed truths 7 Jüngen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 1985, 26. 8 Cardinal Francis, “How Globalization Challenges the Church’s Mission” Origins 29 no. 27 (1999): 37.
e. Furthermore, the fear of the future has been deepened by the acts of terrorism and counter-
terrorism on an international scale. The destruction of the World Trade Centre on September 11,
2001 is seen as symbol of a new age of “apocalyptic terror.” Apocalyptic interpretations of reality
have fuelled many other acts of terrorism. Indeed, while apocalyptic view of the world and the
pending judgement of God are themes that are central to the New Testament, the apocalyptic
movements of the present age are driven more by desperation than by hope contrary to the biblical
message. Contemporary apocalyptic movements proceed in terms of two opposite: final cosmic
warfare and terrorist political action. This worldview divides the world into the good and the evil,
demonises those who are perceived as enemies, it is convinced of the righteousness of its own
cause, and calls for holy warfare.9 Adherents of this kind of thinking see themselves as God’s
agents, called to fulfil his Holy will.
2.4 Various Theories of Creation of the Universe
It is important to study the various theories of creation in order to demonstrate how these theories
resonate with or deviate from the traditional Christian teaching regarding creation. However, in
exploring these theories we do not intend to exhaust all that these theories entail. Suffice it to have
a basic knowledge about the theories. These theories include the theory of creatio ex nihilo, creatio
ex divino, creation by emanation, dualistic theory of creation and the theory proposed by process
theologians.
2.4.1 Creatio Ex Nihilo
It is a traditional teaching of the Church that that God created the universe ex nihilo, that is, out of
nothing.10 The idea of creation ex nihilo originates from a kabbalistic doctrine according to which
the infinite God prepared a room for creation by withdrawing into himself (zimsum). Zimsum means
withdrawing oneself into oneself - this is a divine self-restriction.11 In doing so, God freed some
“mystical primordial space” into which he could act creatively. God withdrew his presence and
restricted his power. He creates a condition for creation by withdrawing his power and presence.
Where “God withdraws himself from himself to himself he can call something forth which is not
divine essence or divine being.”12 This movement in God allows space for creation for its own
being. In this divine self-limitation, which instead of acting outwardly turns inwards towards itself,
creates an occasion for nothingness (nihil) to emerge. This nothingness which results from God’s
self-limitation is a literally Gods forsaken space. This nihil is God-forsaken space, hell, absolute
death which is against the threat of this that he maintains his creation in life. The nihil acquires its
negative or annihilating character “through the self-isolation of created beings to which we give
the name godlessness.”13 It emerges that with regard to the doctrine of Nothingness, we need
always to distinguish between the non-being of the creature, the non-being of creation and the non-
being of God himself. If God creates by self-restriction, by self-humiliation then God creates
9 Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 331-337. 10 Canon Law Society of America, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, ed. James Coriden (New York,
NY: Paulist, 1985), 74. (Hereafter CCC). 11 For more regarding zimsum read especially Isaac Luria who was the first to develop this idea. 12 Jüngen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), 86-87. 13 Ibid., 88.
through a self-restricting love which could also be perceived as self-emptying of God. In creating
heaven and earth, God emptied himself of his all-plenishing omnipotence. This fact leads us to
correct the interpretation of the divine act of creation, to the effect that God does not create merely
by calling something into existence, or by setting something afoot. He creates by “letting be” by
making room, by withdrawing his presence.14
According to the first account of creation is Genesis, therefore, shows that God created the universe
using his word (Gen 1:1-2:4a). It speaks of the creation of the social order out of chaos of
lawlessness through word (Logos). God creates by an effortless word “let be.” It is therefore not
from labour that the creator rests on the seventh day, but rather from his self-emptying and self-
restriction. Through his self-emptying he creates, through his self-humiliation he exalts and through
his vicarious suffering the salvation of sinners in achieved.
In as far as biblical tradition is concerned, the origin of the belief in creatio ex nihilo can be traced
back to the period of the Maccabean persecutions. In 2 Maccabees 7:28 we read: “I beg you my
child to look at the heaven and the earth and see that everything that is in them, and recognise that
God did not make them out of things that existed.” In Maccabean persecutions people were
suffering because of being faithful to the Law. During this period apocalyptic works such as the
Book of Daniel emerged, which sought to give people hope that their sufferings would not last
long. Hence, the context of the affirmation of creatio ex nihilo is the possibility of the resurrection
from the dead in the face of problems faced by the Jewish people. We find a similar link between
belief in resurrection and creatio ex nihilo in the New Testament. Paul speaks of God “who gives
life to the dead and call into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom 4:17).
From what has been said it is clear that the themes of creation and redemption cannot be separated.
The same God who creates is the same one who saves. One needs to recall that the Marcionite
heresy was precisely based on the attempt to separate the two functions.
Marcion (110-160 CE) ventured into distinguishing between the God of the old Testament (an evil
create God) and the God of the New Testament, the God of Jesus Christ (a loving and redeeming
God). According to Christian teaching, the work of salvation constitutes in bringing good out the
evil of sin and hence it is truly an act of creation ex nihilo.15 Therefore, the roots of the belief in
creation ex nihilo lie in the saving power of God.
From the Christian perspective, creation is defined as the production of a thing out of nothing
(productio rei ex nihilo). This implies that, before the act of creation, neither the thing as such, no
any material substratum, from which it was produced, existed. The term ‘creation therefore
expresses the way in which the world and everything in it have their origin, basis and final goal in
God’16 Furthermore, from the metaphysical point of view, creatio ex nihilo means creation without
prior condition, prior constraints, whether these be the constraints of pre-existent matter or of some
14 Ibid. 15 Neil Ormerod, Creation Grace and Redemption New York, NY: Orbis Books, 2007. 16 Kahl Rahner, Encyclopidia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, (London: Burns & Oates 1975) see
“Creation.”
form of necessity imposed on the divine being. God’s creative act is entirely free. There is no cause
for creation apart from God’s free act and God's loving will.17
2.4.2 Creatio Ex Divino
Ecologically oriented groups whose objective is to preserve the environment propose an alternative
theory to creatio ex nihilo. The theory creatio ex divino holds that creation is formed out of the
divine substance itself. It divinizes the created order and regards the universe as the physical
manifestation of God. For them, the created order is in some sense sacred. Hence, this doctrine
leads to some form of pantheism (God is in everything in nature). Pantheism is a belief that the
world is made of God’s being and thus God and nature are one and the same thing. However, there
several difficulties with this view:
It fails to account for the transcendence or the otherness of God and the non-divine
nature of the created order. It seems to suggest that the cosmos is the body of God.
It is difficult to see how this view accounts for the problem of evil. If creation is
from the very stuff of God, then there is little space for evil. Evil becomes the failure
to acknowledge one’s divine nature. It must however be noted that Catholic
sacramental order may mediate the divine without a strict transcendence.
2.4.3 Creation by Emanation
In this view, creation is conceived as a series of emanations from the divine, a graded hierarchy of
emanations, with each grade in the hierarchy giving rise to the next lower grade. In this way, the
divine creative power is mediated through a series of increasingly degraded beings. This view is
driven by the desire to safeguard the divine but misconstrues the nature of that transcendence as
remoteness. The physical world is in this regard created by a lower order being, sometimes referred
as the demiurge. However, this view has some limitations:
1) While trying to safeguard the transcendence of the divine it compromises the goodness of
creation.
2) This view misconstrues the divine as remoteness to the extent that the emanationist notion
requires an imagined bridge between the divine and the material order. Christianity teaches
about the direct creative action of God to the entirety of creation. God needs no
intermediaries to create, and so God is directly and immediately present to the whole of the
created order. Transcendence is not seen in terms of remoteness but rather guarantees divine
immanence.18
2.4.4 Dualist Account of Creation
This position posits two distinct but opposed creative forces: one good, God and the other evil,
depicted as Satan. In this scheme, God is seen as the creator of spiritual realities while Satan is the
creator of material realities. Spirit (reason, intellect, will) is good while matter (body, sexuality,
17 Ormerod, Creation Grace and Redemption, 5. 18 Ibid., 8.
feelings, etc.) is evil. Manifestations of this particular include Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism,
Catharism, and ‘Gnosticism.’ The form of dualism that is reflected here is contrary to the Christian
teaching. Christianity asserts the sovereign power of God over all creation including evil spirits.
Otherwise, Christianity only maintains a moral dualism (the distinction between good and evil
actions and decisions).
2.4.5 Process Theology
A more recent approach to the question of God and creation is found in process theology.19 The
process theology was inspired by the writings of Alfred North Whitehead and Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin. In process theology, emphasis is on dynamism and becoming or creativity as necessary
resources in the understanding of Christian faith. Universe is seen as an interrelated organism. This
trend of thinking takes serious account of integration and change. Process theology always looks
forward to the emergence of new possibilities. Process theology reconceived the God-Creation in
terms of mutuality (Panentheism). Panentheism is the belief that the world and God are mutually
dependent. This particular theology suggests that God is intimately part of the world, and the world
in intimately part of God. God is unthinkable without the world and the world is unthinkable
without God. God is a formative element in the creation process or creativity. God has a creative
function. The nature of all reality is that it becomes.
According to Thomistic theology there are two fundamental relations between God and the world
(created order) - the relation of God to the world and the relation of the world to God. In the first
place, the relation of God to the world is called real relation and it is expressed in two ways:
1. God is related to the world as its creator without whom the world would not exist.
2. God is related to the world in the order of grace or supernatural life.
Secondly, the relation of the world to God is rational or accidental relation. This relation adds
something extrinsic to the object of the relation. God's extrinsic glory is the glory that the world
gives to God by acknowledging his Lordship in worship and obedience. God’s intrinsic glory is
that glory that God has eternally in himself as a supreme being. According to process theology just
as it is for Thomas the relation of God to the world is real. The difference comes with regard to the
relation of the world to God. For Thomas, this relation is a rational or accidental relation. On the
contrary, for process theologian this relation is real. In other words, the world contributes to the
becoming of God. The world makes God real. When it perishes, it is added to the consequent nature
of God where it is everlastingly preserved in the objective sense. This is precisely where process
theology goes wrong. It falsely assumes that the created order contributes towards the becoming
of God.
2.5 How Equipped are we to Face these Challenges?
Traditional Teaching of the Church on Creation: Generally, it has to be admitted that the pre-
Vatican Two Traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of Creation was not so helpful in helping us face
19 Ormerod, Creation Grace and Redemption, 9-10.
these challenges as the Manual on creation, De Deo Creatore, was far from being a dynamic and
life-inspiring treatise. In the main, the actual topic of creation was neglected in Christian theology
being viewed as a pre-Christian topic or else simply as a philosophical truth. To get a taste of the
tone of classical teaching let us simply listen to what the First Vatican Council had to say about
creation:
Vatican One: The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap I: On God the Creator
of all things
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is
one true and living God,
creator and Lord of heaven and earth,
almighty,
eternal,
immeasurable,
incomprehensible,
infinite in
will,
understanding and
every perfection.
2. Since he is
one,
singular,
completely simple and
unchangeable
spiritual
substance
he must be declared to be in reality and in essence,
distinct from the world,
supremely happy in himself and from himself, and
inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be
imagined.
3. This one true God,
by his goodness and almighty power,
not with the intention of increasing his happiness,
nor indeed of obtaining happiness,
but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what
he creates,
by an absolutely free plan,
together from the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing
the twofold created order, that is
the spiritual and the bodily,
the angelic and the earthly,
and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is
composed of spirit and body.
4. Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence,
which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things
are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free
activity of creatures.
To these four paragraphs are added five canons which explicitly condemn as heretical any views
which contradict the above claims.
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let
him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that
there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that
the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let
him be anathema.
4. If anyone says
that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from
the divine substance; or
that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all
things or, finally,
that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes
the totality of things distinct in general, species and individuals: let him be
anathema.
5. If anyone
does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual
and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by
God; or
holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily
as he necessarily loves himself; or
denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
What basically is Vatican One saying? It is important to identify the main elements because they
supplied in a nut-shell the basic ingredients of all the pre-Vatican Two Seminary text books and
Latin manuals on creation, in the treatise or course usually known as De Deo Creatore.
In essence there are three basic Theses contained in Vatican One:
1. The whole of creation depends for its existence entirely on the activity of God the
Creator.
2. God is totally free in creating the universe
3. The ultimate goal of creation is to share in the goodness of God and thus give God
glory.
Let us unpack what is contained in these three theses.
The first thesis holds that there is nothing which exists that does not come from God. It
excludes immediately any idea that there could be some other principle or source of
existence independent of God. Thus all dualism is excluded. If any reality exists – it can
only be because of the creative activity of God. Moreover, since creation depends for its
existence on God, then it means that our world is radically non-self-sufficient as regards
keeping itself in being. If it depends for its on-going existence on God’s creative power that
means that the world is essentially contingent. Furthermore, this dependence is total. There
is simply no part of our reality which did not come from God. Everything issues from God
who does not create using any kind of pre-existing material. God in fact creates out of
nothing and with nothing – ex nihilo. And, of course, God does all this totally alone. God
is the sole author of the whole of created reality. So no room for pantheism (identifying
God with everything). No emanation of reality from the fullness of God’s being. God does
not generate creation out of his own essence or substance. Nor does creation happen by
chance or accident. God intentionally and deliberately brings into being the whole of
creation which always remains radically distinct from God. God is the efficient cause of
creation which depends on him totally and which belongs to him entirely.
The second thesis holds that creation is an absolutely free act of God. No necessity is
involved at all. God had no need of the world. He didn’t have to create us. There was no
obligation or compulsion or force. He could have got on just fine without us. We might
quite easily have never been. It is entirely the free initiative of God. Pure gratuity. Sheer
grace. Absolute gift. God could just have easily not created anything as equally he could
have created an infinite number of other possible worlds! [And maybe God did!].
Consequently, this world has no necessary existence in itself. It is contingent. It is the fruit
of God’s free choice to bring into being. There was a time when the world was not. There
will be a time when the world will be not. With no necessity for the world to be, it is finite.
It had a beginning. It will have an end.
The third thesis holds that God had a dream – a specific purpose, aim or goal in creating.
There can be no other finality for our world than God’s own goal – which is that all people
share in his goodness and life. This means that God’s aim in creating us had no trace of
selfishness or egoism in it. God can gain nothing from creation being all-perfect in God’s
own self. The goal of creation is purely altruistic. He creates in order to communicate his
goodness, that we might participate in his own goodness. The ultimate reason for our
existence then is to share in the very goodness of God. By doing this we give God “glory”,
i.e., by receiving God’s goodness into our being and by communicating this goodness to
our fellow men and women.
Such in essence is the heart of traditional Catholic pre-Vatican Two creation theology. As we can
see deep down these three theses contain some beautiful truths and insights which we should
always appreciate and value. But the aim is clearly defensive and protective; to counteract false
teachings and point away from error. Whilst this is clearly important, something of great value is
lost. The targeted error controls and shapes the presentation. The tone is apologetic. Consequently,
the rich positive life-enhancing depths of creation theology are not explored. They remain
untapped. As so often happened in history, it is as though it took a heresy to trigger off the Church’s
reflection on the deeper meaning and implications of the doctrine of creation. If heresies set the
agenda, then the outcome can only be limited. In such a situation, only one side of the story comes
into the light. Of necessity, the Church’s approach becomes unbalanced, investing all her energy
in defending one point of view. As a result, a wholistic approach to the question is never achieved.
Since most of these theses were ultimately articulated after 1870 when Neo-Scholasticism was
reigning supreme in the form of Neo-Thomism, we can see immediately that the language in which
they are expressed is very dry, dull and uninspiring. The tone is short and sharp. The vocabulary is
very philosophical rather than biblical. Everything seems to proceed by human logic and reasoning,
not by the gift of revelation received in faith. In fact, the position is presented almost as if it were
self-evident as a natural truth. The Mystery of God revealing himself as Creator seems to have been
eclipsed. Instead, a rationalistic and intellectual approach to creation has dominated Catholic
theology, piety and asceticism. As a result, the traditional Seminary course on creation was one of
the least satisfactory in the pre-Vatican Two regime and totally inadequate. It was perhaps
understandable and done with the best of intentions. To protect the faithful from falling into idolatry
by over-valuing created goods. To make sure that the relative value of created realities was never
absolutised. Laudable in itself – but at what price and cost to a healthy, wholistic approach to the
beauty of creation! The Church has surely more to offer on creation than just a defensive package!
Perhaps the most alarming lacuna in the traditional teaching was the massive absence of any
reference to specifically Christian dimensions of creation. It was not presented as an intrinsic
element of the Christian mystery, not understood as a specifically Christian revelation. It seems to
have been seen as an understanding of the origin of the world held in common with other major
Theistic religions such as Judaism and Islam. Moreover, classical, pre-Vatican Two creation
theology appears to have nothing to do with Jesus Christ! If Jesus is God’s way of being human
and the enfleshing of all that God has to say to humanity, then somehow the revealed truth of
creation must have some connection with Jesus of Nazareth. Traditional teaching on creation seems
to have been woefully silent on the links between Christ and creation.
2.6 The Need for a New Perspective
When one looks at the topics covered in Catholic theology textbooks, throughout the 19th century
and right up to the 1960s one realizes that Christian theologians focussed their attention, almost
exclusively, on the reality of the sacred, the holy, on Scripture, on the Trinity, on Jesus Christ, on
salvation, on the Church, the sacraments and Canon Law! And not on creation! In this theology,
God was seen as the creator of the world, omnipotent yes, but largely removed from the world.
While God related to the human community through Jesus in terms of the theology of redemption,
his relation to the rest of creation was minimal. In this worldview, the world was stripped of any
mythical or sacral dimension. For all practical purposes, concerns about the natural world, as well
as debates about politics, economics and culture, areas of life that were engaging the minds of
scholars and thoughtful people were largely ignored by theologians because they were seen as
outside the theological realm, outside the supernatural world of grace.
Just a quick glance at the above summary shows that though the Church did well to
articulate in a succinct way some essential insights into the theology of creation, so much
more has to be said to do justice to the revealed mystery of creation. But obviously a new
approach was needed. One that was supplied by the impetus of the Second Vatican Council,
especially with its document Gaudium et Spes: The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the modern World.
What the doctrine of creation amounts to in Gaudium et Spes is that our existence in the world has
a meaning, a whence and a whither, a where-from and a where-to: the person, Jesus Christ.
Gaudium et Spes is a milestone in the history of the Church’s stance towards the world. It embodies
a positive, liberating vision of life that refuses to seal off religious issues from the rest of human
affairs. Though it does not offer an ecological vision of reality nor say anything significant about
ecology and the environment, Gaudium et Spes at least showed a new way forward in offering a
more adequate theology of creation.
First of all, creation theology has to be re-connected with salvation history. One of the
greatest weaknesses that we did not mention in the classical approach was that creation
seemed to be totally separated from God’s saving work, with salvation being too narrowly
interpreted as only rescue from sin. Creation seemed to stand outside the salvific concerns
of God towards humanity. Creation was seen as preceding salvation and having no intrinsic
connection with it. Creation was thus relegated to being an activity of God in the dim distant
past. But creation and salvation belong together and cannot be separated. Though there is a
distinction between them – they should not be split. They are two poles along the same
continuum or spectrum. Creation is an intrinsic initial phase of the drama of salvation. It is
the beginning of salvation. Creation theology needs soteriology and soteriology needs
creation theology.
Secondly, the theology of creation has to be re-connected to and more strongly associated
with, the person of Jesus Christ. This can only be done by returning to the Scriptures, and
in particular, the New Testament. But, of course, the last 27 books of the Christian bible
cannot be understood without a correct grasp of the First Testament, the Hebrew Tanach.
It is there that a biblical theology of creation has to begin and if such a presentation is to be
accurate, we must ensure that the authentic principles of biblical interpretation are strictly
adhered to.
CHAPTER THREE
CREATION ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE
3.1 Introduction
The Hebrew Scriptures open with an account of creation. However, this does not imply that Israel’s
faith in God was from the beginning, faith in God the creator. Rather, the Israelite first experienced
God as a saviour and liberator. With the passage of time and after a thorough reflection that they
came to realise that the God who freed them from the slavery in Egypt is the same God who created
the whole universe. Hence, the biblical texts that deal with creation or the origin of the world are
to be placed in the context of salvation history. In other words, the Old Testament story of the
creation serves to support the scriptural account of the divine plan of salvation.
The Genesis creation accounts were not composed to answer the scientific question of how the
world came to into existence. On the contrary, they proclaim the relationship of God to reality, the
relation of creator to creation. The authors did not base their views of the universe on the critical
use of empirical data. The authors made use of imaginative powers and pictorial and poetic genre
to express profound truths about the existence of the world and humanity.
3.2 Creation in the Old Testament
Although the bible is not only about creation, it informs us about the origin and destiny of the
created universe. In approaching Scriptural message regarding creation, one should take caution
not to historicize all the biblical data. The bible is not exclusively a historical or scientific document
but rather a divinely revealed text, which makes use of different linguistic symbols in revealing
God’s message for his people. With this in mind, we would like now to treat the Old Testament
creation account.
3.2.1 Two Biblical Accounts of Creation
The book of Genesis begins with two accounts of creation, both of which are relatively late
compositions. The first account in the first chapter of Genesis (Gen 1:1-2:4a), which originates
from a Priestly tradition is more cultic whereas the second account (Gen 2:4b-25) is in Genesis
chapter 2 from the Yahwist tradition and is more popular.
A closer examination of the first two chapters of Genesis reveals that each account of creation is a
product of two historical contexts. The historical context of the Priestly account is the Babylonian
exile in the sixth century BC. The exile was such a devastating experience for Israel, both
politically, socially and theologically. The survivors of the exile reasserted their belief in God’s
power over chaos and over death. The creation myth of the Israelites was certainly influenced by
the Babylonian myths stories of creation.
Moreover, both accounts of creation in the Genesis texts are characteristically different, not only
in their external structure but also in their purpose. The priestly account seeks to answer the
question, what is the origin of evil? Does it originate from primal evil principle or from God
himself? The Priestly account of creation attempts to answer the question of whether God, who
wishes to be worshipped as the omnipotent Lord, is really this mighty ruler. Thus, the first text
witnesses to creation while the second centres on the origin of evil in a good world created by God.
Yet both texts give the doctrine of the origin of evil and of the sovereignty of God.
The two traditions have different interests and points of concern. The Priestly tradition focuses
more on Law and liturgy of Israel with some emphasis on the teaching. Already difference can be
noted from the very fact that Priestly account begins with the description of the creation of the
world order before moving to present the creation of humanity. The Yahwist author rather begins
with the creation of humanity and then follows the creation of the other creatures, which in turn
are subdued to humanity.
3.2.2 The Origin of the Two Accounts of Creation
The first two chapters of the book of Genesis present a detail account of how the world came into
existence. According to Michael Schmaus, these chapters have their origin in the faith of the people
of Israel in their covenant with God. Both accounts are a fruit of different authors and different
times. Moreover, both accounts were later compiled into the book of Pentateuch by an editor, a
process which could have possibly taken place during the Babylonian exile.20 The origin of these
texts is traced back to the times when the Israelites faced great suffering, persecution, harassment
and humiliation from their neighbours. In such situation, doubt arose as to whether their God was
a mighty God as Moses had asserted. Thus, “thoughtful men, under the influence of the Spirit of
God, asked themselves how faith in the one God might be preserved.” They addressed question
such as where the evil and destruction in the world came from; whether the God of Israel was a
might God as it was always imagined. However, it needs to be noted that while the author tries to
use all his scientific and cultural knowledge, his point is not how but that the world comes from
God and God has sovereign over it. It is important also be noted that it was through meditation on
man and his relationship to God that the writer arrived at the conclusion presented in the text.
3.2.3 The First Account of Creation (Gen 1:1-2:4a)
This first account originates from the Priestly (P) tradition. Biblical scholars argue that the first
account originates from the Babylonian captivity around 6th to 5th century B.C. It grew out of the
exile experience of suffering and dissolution. The priestly account gives account of creation in
duration of five days and particularly of the creation of man on the sixth day and finally God resting
and sanctifying the seventh day. The account begins with the creation of the firmament, of dry land,
of heavenly bodies, and finally of man. The Babylonian creation myths was reshaped by the author
of the Priestly account in such a way as to portray the fact that God of Israel established an orderly
cosmos out of chaos for elect people of Israel. The author focuses on confidence in God rather than
reporting of the history of primordial times of creation.
Besides, in the Babylonian creation myth, creation unfolds through conflict between the deities.
The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat gives rise to the world out of the slain Tiamat, whose
body is severed. It is only because of Marduk’s struggle with Tiamat that heaven and earth are
20 Michael Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 68.
created.21 In contrast to the Babylonian myth, Genesis 1 shows no conflict. In Genesis 1 creation
takes place simply through God’s word. It is through God’s word that a good and orderly world is
created.
Another difference between the Priestly view of creation and that of Israel’s neighbours has to do
with the creation of the heavens. Given the cosmologies of Israel’s neighbours, which envisioned
the astral realm as inhabited by a multiplicity of deities, it is significant that Israel envisions the
heavens as created through God’s command. The emphasis on the creatureliness of the heavenly
bodies serves to exalt Israel’s God as creator. The fulfilment of God’s command is celebrated in
Israel’s own cultic form. The narrative with its six days of activity culminating in a day of rest
moves in successive stages of creation to Sabbath celebration. This movement points to the
continuation of a process as it moves toward a goal that transcends the works of creation. The
purpose of the creation story is to praise God. The text is a narrative about world creation expressed
as doxology.
3.2.4 An Exegetical Note on the Priestly Account
The concept of notion of creation ex nihilo is later theological interpretation, which emphasizes the
fact that wherever and whatever God creates is without any preconditions. No primordial or pre-
existent matter. “There is not external necessity which occasions his creativity, and no inner
compulsion which could determine it.” The world was called into existence by the free will of God:
creatio e libertate Dei and therefore out of love.22
a) The Meaning of the Phrase “in the beginning”
The first chapter of Genesis begins with the phrase: “In the beginning God created heaven and
earth.” The phrase “in the beginning” has been interpreted to imply the point in time when “there
was nothing side by side with God and in which the things external to God began to exist,” that
beginning before which nothing existed except God. God himself posited the beginning.23 The verb
used here it bara or barah meaning to make or to create which can also mean produce in the wider
sense (Pss 89:48; 104:30; Is 43:1; 54:16; 65:17f.). The word is used exclusively of divine activity,
“the divine bring forth which there is no corresponding human analogy.” Bara means bringing
forth something which was not in existence before (Ex 34:10, Num 16:30; Ps 51:101.22. As matter
of fact, Genesis distinguishes between “creating” (bara) and making, (barah). In Genesis 1:1, the
term Bara is used for creation as a whole. The ‘making’ begins with v. 2 and is completed with
Sabbath. A similar situation is also seen in Genesis 2:2. According to Jürgen Moltmann, the term
‘making’ is used for the purposeful ‘manufacturer’ of a work, in which something is given its
particular character and aptitude.
b) Creation of Heaven and Earth
By the phrase “heaven and earth” the author is referring to the universe. The text asserts that God
created the world by his word. Theologically this is interpreted as expressing the fact that dialogue
21 Alexander Heide, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951 ),
18-60. 22 Moltmann, God in Creation: A-New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, 74-75. 23 Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma Vol. 2, 70.
constitutes the basis of the relationship between God and the world. God created the world into
order ‘to enter into communication and conversation with it.’ This is especially true when man is
considered as the essential element in creation.24 Secondly, “the word of command has a special
significance that colours the whole of Priestly theology. Everything that happens has its source in
God’s word of command.”25
c) The Sky, the Earth the Sea and Vegetation
Gen 1:6-8: The sky was believed to be solid, holding up the waters that occasionally came down
as rain through its windows (Gen 7:11; Ps 148:4). Gen 1:9-10: At the time of creation the sea, home
of the dragon and therefore considered hostile in the Bible, is given its fixed boundaries, but
remains a menace to humankind (Jb 38:8-11; Ps 104:6-9). It will disappear forever with God’s final
victory over evil (Rev 21:1). 1:11-12. God empowers the earth to produce all kinds of vegetation
in its many species. These are in turn empowered to reproduce themselves in a continuous process
of renewal, for the sake of the earth itself and for the benefit of animals and humans that inhabit it
(1:29-30; Ps 104:1 4-15). Any human activity, therefore, that negatively interferes with this natural
process of the earth’s self-renewal goes against the Creator’s intention.
Space then was created on the second day (vv.6-10), where the sky was set up as a dividing surface
between the clouds heavy with water and dry land surrounded by the sea. Vegetation sprouted on
the third day (vv. 11-13). The heavenly bodies appeared on the fourth day (vv. 14-19). Fish and
birds arrived on the fifth day (vv.20-23). The beasts of the earth were created on the sixth day as
well as human beings, the climax of the entire creation (vv.24-31). On humanity’s supernatural
status, both our personal dignity as beings created in God’s image and our task to exercise dominion
over all animals are based. This assertion implicitly implies a condemnation of zoolatry which
leads to a violation of what is most sacred to the human person: their relationship with God and
their personal fulfilment.
d) The Creation of the Galaxy
The creation of the galaxy has a religious significance (Gen 1: 14-18). Israel’s neighbours
considered the sun, moon and stars as divinities and worshipped them (Wis 13 :2-3). The author of
Genesis is here indirectly refuting these pagan beliefs by pointing out that all these heavenly bodies
are lights and nothing more. Their purpose is to give light to the earth and to regulate the liturgical
calendar for the celebration of religious festivals (Ps 104: 19). In this way, the author is indirectly
saying that the sun, moon and stars also take part in the worship of the one God. Elsewhere in the
Bible they are often invited to join in creation’s song of praise to God (Ps 103:21: 148:2-3; Dn
3:62-63).
e) The Meaning of the Plural Formula “Let us”
The use of plural “let us” in Gen 1:26 can be interpreted in two ways. Either it is God deliberating
‘with the divine beings of his heavenly court (1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; Ps 82:1), or it is a plural of
God’s majesty and fullness of divinity: the Hebrew word for God (elohim) is always in the plural.
Either meaning expresses well the solemnity of the moment when God is about to make his most
24 Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma Vol. 2, 71. 25 Anne Clifford, "Creation," in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives. ed. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza
and John P. Galvin. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991, 200.
noble creature. This is what distinguishes human beings from animals. Human beings can relate to
God in a personal way because their intellect and will give them a certain similarity of nature with
God. It is this likeness to God that also gives them delegated authority over the rest of creation (Ps
8:5-7).
f) The Meaning of the words “image and likeness”
The words “image or likeness” intimate humanity's special relationship to God. The Creation of
humans is intended that something takes place between them and God. God can speak to them and
humans are able to hear him. Humankind is created to stand in dialogue with God. Not a few
attempts, however, have been made to get the meaning of the words “image and likeness.”
g) The Goodness of God’s Creation
Moreover, the author declares that all that God created was “Good.” This phrase is interpreted not
in a metaphysical sense, but rather creation was capable of achieving what God wanted it to
achieve.26 The author of the priestly account does not explore the origin of sin and evil, as does the
Yahwist document for possible reason that he was aware that the question was already addressed
by the later. The emphasis is rather on goodness of creation and that the evil in the world does not
come from God, only good come from God.
h) The Sabbath Day
The allusion to the Sabbath in the text is a reminder that even in captivity the ancient laws of God
were not to be forgotten or disregarded (it is possible that during the exile there was some form of
relaxation in the observation of the Sabbath).
These verses of Gen 2: 1-3 have the purpose of showing that the Jewish Sabbath is of divine origin.
The word is related to the Heb. verb shabat, which means to rest. God rested after finishing his
work of creation and thus set an example to be followed by his people. The Sabbath was meant:
i. Sabbath has its origin in God.
ii. to commemorate God’s work of creation (Ex 20: 8-11)
iii. to guarantee a day of rest every working week as a human necessity (Ex 23:12; Dt 5:12-
15).
iv. to be a sign of God’s covenant with his people (Ex 31: 12-17).
v. It is the crowning moment of creation.
vi. It is the day the whole creation glorifies it maker. Indeed, “it is the Sabbath which blesses,
sanctifies and reveals the World as God’s creation.”27 Christians replaced the Sabbath with
Sunday, the first day of the week (Jn 20: 1) to commemorate the resurrection of Christ,
mediator of God’s new creation (Col 2:16-18) and new covenant (Lk 22:20; Heb 8:6;
12:24).
vii. The Sabbath is also “the prefiguration of the world to come.”
26 Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma Vol. 2, 71. 27 Moltmann, God in Creation, 6.
3.3 Emphasis on the Human Soul
Philo of Alexandria: Under Greek philosophy, Philo affirmed that “image” and “likeness” consist
in the person's spiritual capabilities or superiority. This view was received by the Christian church
as the natural aspect of the image and likeness in the human beings.
Augustine of Hippo: He contended that the “image” and “likeness” of God consist in the powers
of the human soul: that is, memory intellect and love. Nineteenth-century Protestant dogmatians
had a similar understanding of the issue. New interpreters: are of the same opinion: For example,
Schleiermacher affirmed that “image and likeness” consists in the human's religious-moral
personal life. He thinks that it consists in “personality, understanding, free-will, self-consciousness
intelligence, spiritual ...existence, immortality of soul etc....
3.4 Focus on human external appearance/Analogy of Form
Herman Gunkel: Says “the first man is like God in form and appearance”.
L. Koehler: Brought Gunkel's view further as even to affirm that the image and likeness
consist in human’s upright appearance.
J. J. Stam (1940-) sees Gunkel and Koehler position as a broadly accepted “agreeing that
the external form is being designated as the essential of the image.”
3.5 Focus on active Caretaking of God's Creation
After their study on Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts on kingship, Wildberger H., and Schmidt
W. H., both conclude that the image/likeness of God is to be understood in the sense of viceroy
representative. Wildberger H. affirms that “man[sic] is God's representative there is but one
legitimate image through which God shows himself in the world and that is man[sic].” Schmidt.
W.H., said “when the king is said to be the image or representative of God on earth then the
meaning is that divinity appears where the king appears.” According to Gen 1:26 “God is
proclaimed where man is. Man represents, witnesses God on earth. In favour of this view are also
Clifford R.J “and Murphy R. when they comment: “the human is a statue of the deity, not by static
being but by action, who will rule over all things previously created.”28
3.6 Focus on Humanity as such
Karl Barth: Says “images” and “likeness” of God “consists not in' something other than the human
is or does. It exists just because the human him/herself and as such exists as a creature of God. The
fact that she/he is human suffices for her/him to be God's image. He/she would not be human if it
were not God's image. Image /likeness really ought to be described as the special character of
human existence by virtue of which is as it were a Thou which can be addressed by God and an I
which is responsible before God.29
All in all, the Bible does not indicate exactly what the image of God in humans is. It may involve
all these ideas. The human alone is personal, conscious in fellowship with God (Gen 1 :29-30;
28 Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik III, 206. 29 Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik III, 206.
2:15-16; 3: 8). The human is to take God's place in ruling over and developing the creation (Gen
1:26; 1:28). Yet these are possible only because of certain qualities of personality, which the
humans alone have. Gen 2:4b: The writer uses the name Yahweh, the proper name of Israel’s God,
to express the intimate relationship between him and human beings. This is the name that was
revealed to Moses on Mount Horeb (Ex 3:13-15). Therefore, God finished the work of creation on
the seventh day when he added the final touches by blessing and hallowing this day (Gen 2:1-3).
Due to the fact that the Creator himself blessed the seventh day, he made it beneficial to humankind.
With this assertion the biblical author refutes the superstitious belief held by the Assyro-
Babylonians that the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days of the month were
ill-omened, because the lunar month of twenty-eight days ended on the twenty-eighth and thus was
regarded as the day of ‘death’ of the moon. Moreover, the previous three weeks of the month ended
each on the seventh, fourteenth and twenty-first and ‘died’ in some way. This superstition was
eradicated by the faith in the efficacy of God’s blessing which one receives in cultic worship, where
the liturgical official is the intermediary of the blessing he invokes from God to be bestowed on
the faithful.
The seventh day is hallowed for it is consecrated to God. This day is the proper occasion for an
encounter with God in regular intervals week after week. It implies a refutation of the belief held
by ancient Egyptians that the day of feast in honour of the goddess Isis consecrates the annual
seasons, the months of the year and the days of the week. Special significance is attached to the
seventh day biblical tradition because it is a ‘memorial day’ of divine blessing and sanctification
commemorated in the worship of God.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE PLACE OF HUMAN BEINGS
IN RELATION TO GOD AND CREATION
4.1 The Origin of the First Man
As already observed, the book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation of the First Man. The
first is in Genesis 1:27: “God created man in his own image. To the image of God, He created him.
Male and female He created them.” The second narration is in genesis 2:7: “And the Lord God
formed man out of the slime of the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man
became a living soul.” This passage has been interpreted that man is composed of two essential
parts- a material body and a spiritual soul. As can be seen above the Priestly author expresses
the nearness of man to God through the concept of the image of God. The Yahwist expresses the
same idea through God’s breathing life into man.
Additionally, the book of Genesis 2:21-22, indicates that the body of the first woman was formed
from the body (the rib) of the First Man. In this context, the woman is depicted as the being who
complements man and seeks together with him an original unity. The sacred author wanted to
affirm “the basic equality of man and woman and also to account for the drive of the sexes towards
one another.” Consequently, "the love between man and woman which achieves its fulfilment in
marriage is grounded in the origin of man.”30 According to the Fathers the manner of Eve's creation
symbolises “the essential assimilation of the woman to the man, the divine inauguration of
marriage, and the origin of the Church and of the sacraments from the wounded side of Christ, the
second Adam.”31
4.2 Created in The Image of God (Imago Dei)
The designation of human beings is described in two different words: salem and demuth- in Greek
Eikon and homousios in Latin imago and similitudo. The first of these terms is used for the concrete
representation, the second is used for the similarity. The first expresses more the outward
representation, the second rather the reflexive inward relationship. It is possible that the terms were
borrowed from the Egyptian royal theology. The Pharaoh was seen as the reigning copy of God on
earth, his representative, his deputy, his reflection and his mode of appearance in the world. The
Pharaoh was seen as present in all the statues which were erected in all the provinces of his empire.
In a similar way, the human being is understood as the emblem of God’s sovereignty set up on
earth. Psalm 8 also represents the human being who has been created to be the image of God as a
royal personage. If it is correct that this terminology derives from the Egyptian royal theology, then
it is possible to conclude that the priestly writing contains a "democratization" of royal theology.
The passage then has a democratising effect throughout the whole of Jewish and Christian political
history.32 To be created in the image of God therefore means that human beings represent God on
earth, as his similitude they represent him. Man is a reflection of God’s glory (Ps 8). God is present
30 Michael Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 120. 31 Charlotte Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James C. Bastible, trans., Patrick Lynch (Charlotte,
NC: TAN Books and Publishers, NC, 2009), 95. 32 Jüngen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), 218-219.
in human beings. To be an image of something means letting something appear and reveal it.
However, what constitutes human being’s likeness to God? According to traditional theology,
scholars have given the following answers to this question:33
According to the analogy of substance, the soul (which is the human being’s reasonable and
volitional nature) is the seat of human likeness to God, for it is immortal, and similar to the
divine nature.
According to the analogy of form, it is the human being’s upright walk and his upward
glance.
According to the analogy of proportionality, the likeness is to be found in man’s lordship
over the earth, since this corresponds to God’s Lordship over the whole world.
According to the analogy of relation, it consists in the community of man and wife, which
corresponds to the fellowship of God with the trinity.
It must also be emphasised that man is not created by God in the same sense as matter is created.
Matter was created ex nihilo. Man, on the other hand, was formed out of the already existing matter.
In fact, the Fourth Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council stresses the fact that “man comes
from the earth, is allied to the earth and will return once again into the earth.”34 Yet man is also
distinct from the rest of creation by the very fact that he is the climax of creation. The Scripture
emphasises the central role that is given to man in creation by calling man the image of God and
secondly, by fact that he is given the commission from God to be the master of the earth. With
regard to the former, several scholars emphasise the centrality of dialogue as the main idea behind
the creation of man in imago Dei. In other words, dialogue with God is “an essential human
characteristic.” Man is closely connected with God and God is really present in him.35 As regards
the later, the commission given to man to exercise dominion over the earth is not to be interpreted
in terms of man being given superiority and power that leads to “excessive and harmful exploitation
of the planet.” On the contrary, this role is to be interpreted in terms of man's “stewardship” towards
the created order. The divine commission is aimed at first man's active mastery of the earth. Man
should have the knowledge of creation, "but one criterion is given: man's activity must further
human life.”36
4.3 The Essential Elements of Man
Man is composed of body and soul and spirit. Such language can be dualistic, positing two dualistic
realities, one material and, the other spiritual. However, body and soul unite to form the reality,
which we call man. Man is a result of the fact that God created a body and breathed the spirit of
life into it. The souls of spirit could be defined as that which searches for direction, that principle
which is within us that yearns for purpose and meaning. Human spirit is that which searches, that
which explores, and which it searches for are meaning, truth and value as the sources for direction
in the movement of life. It is a hunger, a thirst, a wonder, awe, and a desire that drives the human
spirit to engage in searching. The body is certainly matter fashioned by spirit and the soul is spirit
33 Ibid., 219-220. 34 Ibid., 110-111. 35 Ibid., 113. 36 Ibid., 115.
limited by matter. The tension between spirit and matter is seen as a dialect of transcendence and
limitation. “To cut off from the transcendence of the spirit is to surrender oneself to the rhythms of
the psyche, leading to depression and psychosis. To deny the limitation of the matter and psyche,
'to live like angels,’ is to invite escape into manic fantasy.”37
Hebrew Greek English Meaning
Nephesh Psyké «Soul» A unified living being, life, person, self
Basar Sarx «Flesh» An earthly being: frail, weak, vulnerable, corruptible
Ruach Pneuma «Spirit» A being vivified by an inner, divine spark, life-force
Soma «Body» A being in relation to the world, to others & to God
The Hebrew understanding of the human person is very enlightening in being so holistic. It is
characterised neither by the anthropological dualism of «body» and «soul», nor by the
metaphysical dualism of spirit and matter which dominated much of the Greek reflection on the
human being. This dualism found its exaggerated expression in such groups as the Gnostics. In the
Hebrew understanding, body and soul are not separate entities or strictly separated compartments.
Though spirit and body were recognised as component dimensions, the human being is conceived
in the Hebrew mind as a “psychosomatic unity.” In fact, the human being in Hebrew anthropology
is one single psycho-physiological organism made up of two elements: nephesh (soul) and basar
(flesh). Nephesh is the central notion of Hebrew anthropology. But soul and flesh are not contrasted
in the Hebrew Scriptures. Spirit is not the opposite of body. We do not have a soul. We do not have
a body. We are soul and body. We are soul-body. We are body-soul. The whole person is soul. The
whole person is body. We are entirely body. We are entirely soul. A body that is penetrated to the
core by spirit; a soul that is embodied. We need an integrated, wholistic approach to the human
person. Body and soul are not separate composite parts but different ways of describing the
complex living reality of the single, total human person. We can learn from Scripture.
The word nephesh means is not a straight forward concept. In the Hebrew Bible it has a dizzying
variety of meanings. Nephesh really means much more than the English word soul. It is better to
translate it as being, life, self, or personality. Nephesh is the very “consciousness” and vivacity of
the body, the principle of personal identity. Nephesh is the centre of self-awareness, the centre of
unity of our life force, the deepest dynamic element of the living being. However, Nephesh is not
a purely spiritual entity. It is wrong to translate it simply as psyché or «soul» tout court. Nephesh
always has a corporal component. Etymologically, Nephesh comes from the Semitic root for
«throat» or «neck», the organ for breathing, the channel through which breath passes, and hence
was a metaphor for «life» itself.
On the other hand, Basar is the flesh of any living being, human or animal. Basar is the external
manifestation of the organic aliveness. Since it is applied also to animals Basar underlines the
37 Neil Ormerod, Creation, Grace and Redemption: Theology in Global Perspective (New York, NY: Orbis Books,
2007), 31.
biological component shared by all living creatures and hence a certain kinship or solidarity with
all living beings. We talk about “all flesh,” embracing humanity as a whole. However, Basar is not
just the physical flesh. Basar is the concrete manifestation of the nephesh, the faculties which
display the whole personality in concentrate fashion – heart, eyes, lips, hands, loins, hence its
meaning approximates that of the “body.” In the Hebrew bible, it is used frequently to refer to the
whole person. Basar means the whole, living human being.
Basar or flesh often refers to the human being in the dimension of weakness, fragility and
vulnerability – not just physically but also morally. The human being is fallen, mortal, fades away
like the grass in the fields. Flesh is the whole person under the angle of weakness. In St. Paul basar
will be rendered as sarx which is “flesh” in the sense of human nature, the human condition which
is weak and fallen. Paul uses sarx to highlight the creaturely, vulnerable and mortal nature of life,
especially as it stands under the judgment seat of God. Sarx/Flesh is not a material part of the
human person to be contasted with an immaterial part. Sarx/Flesh is a way of referring specifically
to human reality and to the whole of it, particularly as it has become tainted by sin and death. For
Paul sarx implies a moral weakness, since the flesh inclines us towards sin – but note, flesh in itself
is not sinful, although in popular parlance we speak so easily about the «sins of the flesh»!
Moreover, the psycho-physiological composite «nephesh-basar» is animated by ruach, (spirit) the
life-giving force given by God. Ruach originally signified the air or the wind or a breeze [air in
motion, air in movement]. Then it came to be used for the breath or breathing and then for life
itself, consequently, it is pretty similar to nephesh. It is a creative power or force, a gift that comes
from outside, ultimately from God – the holy spirit of God. It implies openness to others, to God
and to one’s fellow men and women. Vertical openness and horizontal openness. Paul will indeed
contrast sarx/flesh with pneuma/spirit – but this is not the opposition between body and soul, rather
it is the opposition between a sinful humanity and a humanity docile to the Spirit of God.
Another constitutive element of the human person is the body. In Greek soma is found often in the
New Testament, especially in Saint Paul, and refers once again to the whole person but in the sense
of a “being-in-the-world”, in time and space, the total person, the person as a totality, under the
global aspect, in relation to the earth, to creatures and to other people.
For Paul, it does not mean only one part of a person (the physical), but the whole person viewed
under one aspect, the total person. The person does not “have” a soma, the person “is” a soma.
Soma is therefore also like a personal pronoun “I” or “You”; it can thus be translated as person,
personality, individual. It is not to be identified simply as the physical material body. It is the true
self or ego.
Soma implies the subject of a vast network of relationships with oneself, with others, with the world
and with God. Soma is the person inserted into time and space in this world in solidarity with others
and open to God in whose image he or she is created. It refers to the human being in its concrete
totality.
As a conclusion, it is important to emphasize that the human person is thus a complex, dynamic,
multi-dimensional psycho-somatic unity and subject of a triple constitutive relationship with this
world’s living creatures, with other men and women, and with God. Taken as a whole, the human
being is considered primarily in his or her relationship with Yahweh the Creator. His history and
human destiny are seen in the context of humanity’s relationship to God. Though the rest of creation
find their fulfilment and meaning in the human being, the ultimate meaning of the human being is
to be found in God, not in creation or human history. Hence, respect for the human being as a
transcendental value.
The human being is like the rest of creation in materiality, mortality and dependence, but he or she
towers above the rest of creation, and is more like the Creator in freedom, dominion, transcendence,
intelligence, rationality, spirituality, creativity and personality. This is one of the meanings of the
image of God, the essential basis of the special relationship between God and humanity. Imago Dei
implies also dynamic becoming, dynamism, possibility, potentiality and becoming.
4.4 Monogenism and Polygenism
The encounter between theology and natural science has given rise the following question: did
mankind originate from one set of parents or from more? Monogenism is a theory or a teaching
which holds that all human race stems from one single human pair (one set of parents). Contrary
to it is polygenism which teaches that the various races are derived from several separated stems
or parents (The protagonist of this theory is Issac Adam de la Peyrère, 1596–1676).
The Church teaches that Adam and Eve are the progenitors (parents) of the whole human race
(Monogenism). The teaching of the unity of the human race is a necessary presupposition of the
dogma of Original sin and Redemption (Rom 5:12-19). In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical
Humani Generis, which among other things tried to assert the position of monogenism “on the
ground that it was a necessary element in the understanding of original sin.” In other words,
polygenism is rejected because of its incompatibility with the doctrine of Original Sin. It must be
noted that original sin belongs to the indispensable content of Christian faith and one of the
foundation stone. In the scriptural text just quoted, St. Paul calls Christ the second ancestor of the
human race in spiritual sense. Christ fulfils this role even though there is no biological connection
between him and all other men. He is the salvific representative for all other men because of his
position in relation to the whole of creation. In other words, what is implied here is the
christocentirc character of the creation.
In any case, there should connection between Adam and all other men if his action is to have
consequences on them. That connection would be descent. Although Rom 5:12-19 seems to come
close to the affirmation of Monogenism, it was specifically intended to give evidence for original
sin. Yet in the first two chapters of Genesis, we cannot find real trace of Monogenism. The doctrine
comes in chapter 3 where the sacred author sets out to explaining the religious state of men (Gen
3:20). However, while this text may not simply be regarded as a dogmatic formulation of the actual
origin of the human race, it serves as a pointer to a common origin (parents) of humanity for,
science cannot explain how the initial population began.
CHAPTER FIVE
CREATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
5.1 Introduction
It is worthwhile to commence this subsection with these words from John Paul II: “The church and
the scientific community will inevitably interact; their options do not include isolation. [...] Science
can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false
absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. [...] We
need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.”38
There existed harmonious relationship between theology and science until the age of
Enlightenment. In the Modern era, however, difference between theology and science emerged.
This could be partly accounted for from the fact that there emerged many scientific discoveries
which left questions for theology and religion in general. For example, modern biology traced the
species ‘man’ back to the evolutionary series of ‘types’ which came into being and can also
disappear again.39 In his Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, exemplifies the climax of the
conflict between religion and science as follows:
If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the
principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly
hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion
that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that,
when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more
efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.40
The conflict between religion and science exemplified in the Humani Generis raises the question:
is a human being a fluke of selection, or is he a meaningful, late product of evolution? In what
follows, we would like to take up the question of the relationship between science and religion with
particular reference to creation.
5.2 Creation or Evolution: A False Dichotomy?
I would like to begin this discussion with the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his homily on the day
of his papal inauguration in April 2005 said: We are not some casual and meaningless product of
evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved,
each of us is necessary.41 One of the greatest and continuing problems of Christian belief in God is
38 John Paul II, Letter to Director of the Vatican Observatory, 1.6.1988, in Papal Addresses, 300. 39 The critical and rational spirit of modern thinkers increasingly sought knowledge independently of religious
tradition, authority, and dogma. Great scientists such as Nicholas Copernicus (d. 1543), Johann Kepler (d. 1630),
Galileo Galilei (d. 1642), and Isaac Newton (d. 1727) personified the achievement of reason in their advancements in
mathematics, physics, and astronomy. Modernity produced alternatives to a long-assumed Christian cosmology,
history, and articulation of the meaning and purpose of human existence. 40 See also Pius XII, Humani Generis at ttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-
xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html, (12 August 1950), article 5. Accessed on 20.01.2014.
41 This echoes what Joseph Ratzinger had already written long ago in his classic work: Joseph Ratzinger.
presented by the difficulty of relating the concept of God to the world of nature and history as
understood by the modern scientific mind. Can we still speak about a creator God in the twenty-
first century? Is the world dependent on God? Can God act in the world? Does God intervene?
Does the world need God? Since the end of the 18th
century and despite the best intentions of
thinkers such as Isaac Newton and René Descartes, the physical world has been perceived as being
autonomous based on mechanics, physics and mathematics. To many people, the rise of Darwinism
and the modern conception of natural evolution in the 19th
century completed this view of the
natural world and definitively excluded all reference to a personal creator from the description of
the reality of nature. Modern science (following from Copernicus, Galileo and Newton’s laws of
motion and gravity) seemingly has no need of the hypothesis of God to explain the origins and
running of the universe.
To many in the modern scientific world view, the idea of God is superfluous. The world of nature
does not need the continuous activity of a creator God. The world is self-sufficient – according to
science since the Enlightenment. Contemporary culture is dominated by the scientific mode of
interpreting the universe and the world as the outcome of impersonal mechanisms. Furthermore,
the Christian doctrine of creation seems to have been discredited by the Church’s reaction to the
Galileo and Darwin episodes. Before taking up question whether creation or evolution is the
optimal theory, it is helpful to describe what evolution really means. Evolution is defined as the
gradual development of organism from simple life organisms to more complex one over a long
period of time. It is a process through which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral
simple forms to their present complex forms. In this process, genetic changes have taken place in
populations for generations in response to environmental changes.42 Through the process of
evolution it is believed that new forms of life or organism have emerged and also many others too
have extinguished. According to Polkinghorne, there are various stages of evolution:
Introduction to Christianity, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1968. 42 Geoff Hayward, Macmillan Secondary Biology (Nairobi: Macmillan Kenya, 2006), 30-48.
So how can we today still speak meaningfully regarding belief in a creator God? That is the
challenge facing us in this course Theological Anthropology. How do we speak meaningfully to a
contemporary, scientifically minded age in the face of evolutionary theory? We will therefore,
explore in more detailed manner what the theory of evolution means:
The simple question regarding whether it is possible to reconcile creation theories with evolution
raises other questions: Does evolution contradict the biblical account of creation? Are the two
principles mutually exclusive?43 Right from outset the theory of evolution met with resistance from
Christian Churches. In 1907 for example in the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis of Pope Pius
X condemned evolution as a modernist error. The fact that life developed out of matter, the pope
alleged, led to materialism, pantheism and atheism.44 Moreover, in 1950 in the Encyclical Humani
generis, Pius XII confirmed the irreconcilability of evolutionary theory with the Christian faith.
For him, the theory of evolution permitted for artificial contraception and abortion. For the Pope
only belief in creation could enhance faithfulness to nature and reverence for the developing human
life.45 In the face of this irreconcilability of creation and evolution, we would like to pay attention
to some authors who have dealt with this question.
5.3 Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)
Teilhard de Chardin, was a Jesuit Catholic priest, who proposed a modern theory of evolution after
carrying out several studies of particular history of certain groups of fossils. In 1942, he published
a work entitled, The Phenomenon of Man. In this work speaks of the biosphere-origin of life, the
noosphere-origin of mind, and the Omega-God. Teilhard’s theory of evolution attempts to
incorporate the findings of modern science particularly biology and palaeontology. At the core of
his theology and his science is the concept of evolution or the process of becoming.
a) Teilhard’s Theory of Evolution
For Teilhard, science informs us that the “Big Bang” which took place five to ten billion years ago
started the formation of chemical elements. Later this process followed by the appearance of the
conditions which made the origin of life possible. Life first arose on the planet earth and possibly
elsewhere in the cosmos some three billion years ago. This was a result of a complex series of
changes in the inorganic nature.46 Some two million years ago biological evolution produced an
extraordinary species, humankind, capable of abstract and thought and endowed with self-
awareness. The evolution of humankind is in the main the evolution of thought, noogenesis.47 Man
is that creature which as a result of evolution has reached the level of reflection and self-awareness.
In fact, man has discovered the phenomenon of evolution. In other words, man is both an observer
43 According to Wiley Tatha, “[m]odernity’s unrelenting questions about the historical reliability of the biblical stories
of the origins of the universe and humans in Genesis 1-3 bore directly on the doctrine of original sin. [...] The
characterization by modern literary scholars of Genesis 1-3 as myth or as a kind of parable, as the seventeenth-century
Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza described it, was initially scandalous.” Wiley Tatha, Original Sin: Origins,
Development and Contemporary Meaning (New Jersey: NJ: Paulist Press, 2002), 106. 44 Denziger Hünnerman, Enchiridion Symbolorum (Fribourg: 1955), 2094ff. 45 Encyclical: Humani Generis.
46 Tneodosius Dobzhansky, "Teilhard de Chardin and the Orientation of Evolution: Critical Essay," in A Critical in
Process Theology: Basic Writings, ed. Ewert Cousins (New York: NY: Newman Press, 1971), 233. 47 Ibid., 245.
and an actor in the drama of evolution. According to Teilhard, the environment presents challenges
to which the species living in it respond by genetic alterations. The alterations are usually adoptive,
that is, as a rule they promote a harmonious adjustment of life to its environment.48 Teilhard speaks
of inorganic, organic and cultural evolution, all of which are constituent parts of the one process of
universal evolution. He preferred to speak of evolution in this inclusive sense. He viewed the
evolution of the universe as a single creative process composed of inorganic and human phases.
These of events seem to cohere to meaningful pattern. In other words, there seems to be a general
direction or trend of evolution, which could be discerned. The universe is therefore a single gigantic
organism.
b) The Omega Point
According to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin the history of cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis appears
to be moving to a synthesis. In this synthesis, humanity appears to be joined to itself in a unity that
is integrated and also respects the differences. In other words, Teilhard admits that there exists a
centre of convergence that lies ahead of us, “a transcendent centre of convergence and
consolidation.”49 The point at which creation seems to converge or culminate is referred as the
Omega Point. The Omega Point is seen as the terminus of the spatio-temporal phenomenon. The
omega Point marks the threshold of maturation of the hole cosmic process. Furthermore, Teilhard
speaks of the omega point as a pole of attraction and consolidation, a pole of irreversibility. The
end of the world cannot be nothing but the real unity of beings in the diversity of their persons.
It is important to note that Teilhard’s theory of the omega point is presented on the basis of the
analysis of the past and present. Teilhard argues that space-time is necessarily a convergent nature
because it contains and engenders consciousness. At the very beginning, that which made man is
the arrival of the individual consciousness (reflective power) at reflection. It therefore follows that
in the course of centuries, that which will measure the progress of humanity is an augmenting (an
increase) of this reflective power by the conjoining reflection of human consciousness among
themselves.
Because of continuity and heterogeneity, that which will crown and limit collective humanity at
the end of its evolution is a kind of pinpoint at the centre of reflecting apparatus taken in its totality.
For Teilhard, reflective evolution will not fulfil itself until it becomes organically one.50 It must
appear as irreversible, i.e. immortal in the end.
Furthermore, Teilhard is of the view that the higher centre to which personalities attach themselves
without mixing must necessarily be distinct from them, i.e. must have its own personality. “The
centre of convergence toward which all creation tends cannot be only an apparent real centre. It
must be subsistent and transcendent in order to be in a position to attract the thinking monads to
itself it is not the result of their convergence, on the contrary, it is the very cause and principle of
convergence.”51 Some observers have argued that “Teilhard leads us to along a strict physical plane
48 Ibid., 239. 49 Claude Tresmontant, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: His Thought (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1959), 67.
50 Ibid., 60. 51 Ibid., 62.
to the recognition of the personal, transcendent Centre, toward which creation converges, and in
which it finds its consistency.”52 On the other hand, the question that arises is: on what grounds
can we be sure that the noogenesis is indeed directed toward, and will actually culminate in the
Omega?
c) The Cosmic Christ
Teilhard uses the Pauline epistles as a starting point to develop his view of “the cosmic Christ,” or
“the universal Christ” which later becomes the doctrine of “the evolutive Christ.”53 According to
him, there must be in the universe “a privileged place where everything is seen, everything is felt,
everything is commanded, everything is animated and everything is touched.” He believes that this
is the best place to acknowledge Christ because he is the first and the Head, for in him all things
have been created and all things hold together and all things are commanded. While he uses much
of the ideas of St. Paul, the newness in his thinking comes with regard to his concept of “evolutive”
Christ. In other words, Christ exerts physical influence on all things and hence over the evolution
of the world. According to Teilhard, “through the incarnation God descends into nature to super-
animate it and lead it back to him.”54 In other words, “for the incarnation to become possible it was
necessary to prepare a people and a woman predisposed to this supernatural visitation.”55 For him,
the vision of the world in evolution makes a better symbiosis with Christian theology than does a
static vision of the world. His success is therefore seen in the attempt to demonstrate the coherence
or harmony that exists between Christian faith and evolution.56 He actually attempts to make
synthesis between science and religion.
5.4 Charles Darwin (+1882)
Charles Darwin was the first scholar to develop the theory of evolution (+1882). In 1859, Darwin
published a book with the title Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation
of the Famous Races in the struggle for life.
a) Social Darwinism
Darwin was the inventor of the theory of “survival for the fittest.” Darwin was very hesitant to
speak of evolution; instead, he preferred the term transformation or doctrine of descent. Darwin's
theory of transformation has also some implications in the social-political life or arena. He applies
his theory of descent to the process of society, thus developing a theory that we refer to as “social
Darwinism.” In this sense, “The capitalist competitive struggle, European colonialism, white
racism (apartheid) and patriarchalism and the class struggles in the society were interpreted in the
right of social Darwinism as natural events of selection.”57
52 Ibid. 53 Henri de Lubac, "The Cosmic Christ," in Process Theology: Basic Writings, ed. Ewert Cousins (New York, NY:
Newman Press, 1971), 251-267. 54 Ibid., 263. 55 Tresmontant, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: His Thought, 71. 56 Ibid., 69. 57 Jüngen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), 191.
Darwin based himself on the principle of the survival for the fittest. We could summarize the
theory of evolution by natural species in five steps:
1. All organisms produce more offspring than can actually survive. Fern plan may produce
50 million spores a year. lf all spores survived, fern plant would cover most of Africa with
two generations.
2. Every organism faces constant struggle to survive. Individuals must struggle constantly
to get enough food, water, space and everything. The struggle is at its worst among
members of the same species. Those who win the struggle survive and leave more offspring.
Some die before they produce or leave fewer offspring.
3. The individuals of a given species vary. Except for identical twins or clones produced by
asexual reproduction, every individual differs in some way from all other members of the
same species.
4. The individual that are best adapted to the environment survive. Some individuals have
some traits that are better suited to the environment than the best traits tend to survive'
Individuals without them tend Darwin refers as “the survival for the fittest.”
5. The organisms that survive pass their alleles (genes) and hence their traits to their
offspring: In general, parents resemble their parents. Parents that survive because of some
useful trait pass their alleles to their offspring.
According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the evolutionary change is gradual and takes
place over long period. In 1871, Darwin published another highly controversial book, The Descent
of Man in which he argued that not only did the human body evolve naturally from its animal
ancestors, but also the human soul evolved as well. There remains a question whether Darwin was
correct in his scientific findings?
b) Critique
If one argues that the world and what it contains are merely a product of a natural selection, then,
one negates the possibility of creation itself. If the belief in “divine creation is replaced by the
assumption of a natural origin, the human being ceases to feel that he is in the hands of a God who
cares for every individual, he sees himself as a cog in the mechanism of natural laws – laws of
nature which seem to deal differently with environment, selection in the adaptation process.”58 In
other words, reducing human beings to a product of mere natural process is a weak argument
against the belief in divine creation. Therefore, on the one hand, it remains the task of natural
science to account for the process of evolution from the original state of matter to the many forms
58 Ibid.
which we see today.59 On the other hand, it is the task of theology to overcome all bias against new
insights about nature and comprehensively demonstrate that there is no contradiction between
evolution and creation.60 However, it must be noted that “creation is a prerequisite of evolution. It
cannot be replaced by evolution.” Evolution does not eliminate God, for God remains continually
immanent in his creation as the power active in everything.”61 In other words, even if God created
originally (creatio originalis), he continues to create (creatio continua) so that there is always a
new creation (creatio nova). Hence, creation is not something static, but a dynamic and
evolutionary process.
5.5 Reconciling Religion and Science with Regard to Creation
As a preliminary remark, it is the case that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. It is
therefore possible and meaningful “to link the concept of evolution with the concept of creation if
both concepts are de-ideologized and if we keep them strictly for the sectors to which they were
intended to apply.”62 If one interprets the Christian doctrine of creation in the context of the
knowledge of nature disclosed through evolutionary theory, one should bear the following in mind:
a) Strictly speaking, evolution has nothing to do with creation, since evolution is concerned
with the making and ordering of creation. Creating, making, and separating are distinct
concepts in the Bible. Creation is a term, which describes the miracle of existence in
general. The act of creation “gathers into one single divine moment the whole of existence,
even though this existence is in itself extended in time, and differentiated in its protean
forms.”63 Therefore, there cannot be a contradiction between creation and evolution.
b) In essence, evolution describes the continued building up of matter and systems of life. In
this regard, the proper place of evolution is where theology speaks of continued creation
(creatio continua). It is therefore not appropriate to substitute the forms of God’s activity
at the beginning (Gen 1:1-2:4a and Gen 2:4b-25) to the forms of divine activity in history
(evolution). When speaking of forms of divine activity in history, one should affirm that
creation (existent things) has an open end. This means that God still creates, transforms and
advances creation in their open-ended history. The basis underlying principle of creation is
that creation is not yet finished, and has not yet reached its end. The human person is part
of this ever-evolving process of creation.
c) The doctrine of creation fundamentally contradicts a static and closed view of the world.
The eschatological consummation or future orientated nature of creation is more compatible
with the concept of a “still incomplete cosmic history.” The whole creation is groaning
59 There is a constant struggle between ‘scientific evolutionists’ and ‘fundamentalist creationists.’ It is the task of a
Biblicist to realize that the biblical creation narratives originated from different historical milieu and that as a result of
new experiences, they underwent several revision and innovation before arriving at their final form. 60 Moltmann argues that there are causes for the bias against modern scientific theories regarding nature: 1) A static
understanding of creation and the relationship between the creator and creation. 2) The anthropocentric view of the
world, according to which the human person is at the center of creation. 61 Michael Schmaus, God and Creation: Dogma (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 123. 62 Moltmann, God in Creation, 195. 63 Ibid., 196.
towards a future consummation of the whole creation in God (Rom 8:19-23). This means
that we need to rethink the anthropocentric view of the world. The human being, although
endowed with special faculties, he participates in creation. The human being is not the
meaning and purpose of creation. The meaning and purpose of all humankind is, like the
meaning of all creation found in God himself. Each created being has its meaning and
purpose in God. There is no single being whose meaning and purpose is found in the
collective of the species and vice versa. Therefore, we have to overcome the old
anthropocentric worldview and embrace a theocentric interpretation of creation. In doing
so, one will arrive at a positive view of the evolutionary theory.
One will be able to reconcile religion and science, creation and evolution if one bears in mind that
evolution is a continuation of or at least part of the creative act. This presupposes that one is ready
to overcome the static view of the created order and embrace a dynamic ever-evolving nature of
the created world. Not that the created order is the result of the evolutionary process but rather it is
a product of a creative act of God. Finally, for one to be able to relate creation and evolution, it is
important to overcome the anthropocentric view of creation and situate humankind in his rightful
place in creation. This means that the human person participates in the being of the entire creation.
CHAPTER SIX
ORIGINAL SIN 6.1 Introduction
The Christian doctrine of original sin is central to the Christian faith.64 Today, however, due to the
changing scientific and social context, the doctrine of original sin raises many questions. Moreover,
in a world in which people have lost a sense of sin, a mere mention of original sin elicits a feeling
of disconnection between the world known through natural sciences, history and other modern
disciplines and the world of religious doctrine. Therefore, we no longer can take the doctrine of
original sin for granted.
This exposition aims at helping one to understand and speak intelligibly and faithfully about
original sin. It aims at clearing doubts, answering question, coherently rediscover, and explain the
perennial truth about this doctrine. In this study, we are aiming at clarifying on the one hand the
question of evil, its origin, nature, transmission and on the other hand, we deal with the question
of redemption.
6.2 What Precisely is Original Sin?
Original Sin is the expression of the basic tenet of our Christian faith, according to which all
men/women are sinners and that they are such from the very beginning of their humanity, namely,
from the first sin of Adam and Eve. Hence, there is no one who does not need the redeeming grace
of Christ.
Ireneaus, bishop of Lyons around 2 AD was the first Church father who formalized a doctrine of
original sin. The formulation of the doctrine of original sin took different shape and approaches,
particularly in challenges and struggles against various false teachings. Some of these erroneous
teachings include Gnosticism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and certain elements of the
sixteenth century Protestant Reformation teaching. In order to have a clear grasp of the
development of this doctrine, we will first undertake a brief biblical background to this doctrine.
Thereafter, we will explore the teaching of Church fathers on this subject before, taking up the
exposition of the doctrine of the original sin according to the council of Orange and Trent.
6.3 Scriptural Basis for The Dogma of Original Sin
Although Scripture is not a systematic treatise on creation or original sin, the sinfulness of human
nature is attested to in the Scriptures. As a preliminary remark, theology distinguishes the First Sin
(peccatum originale originans) and the Original Sin (peccatum originale originatum).65 Whereas
the former refers to the sin of Adam, the later denotes the state of sin, which is that of the children
of Adam. The peccatum originale originatum refers to the inherited sin in which all humans share.
64 In order to understand what original sin is all about, it is helpful to understand the term sin. Sin refers to “a freely
willed transgression of a command of God for which the transgressor himself is responsible.” Understood in this sense,
then, by Original Sin we mean the transgression of Adam and Eve, in which we participate by procreation. It is the
privation of the original blessedness and supernatural life, with the consequence that every child of Adam comes into
the world an enemy of God natural filius irae, a stranger more or less to Christ and to the Church. 65 Henri Rondet, Original Sin: The Patristic and Theological Background. New York, NY: Alba House, 1972, 7.
Thus what Genesis 3:1-24 presents is the first and its consequence, namely original sin. As we
explore the biblical message regarding original sin, we would like to pay attention to the following
set of questions: what is original sin? Is original sin a consequence of this fault? Is one speaking of
the serious sin in which each one is born? With these questions in mind, let us explore the biblical
message on creation or original sin.
6.3.1 Old Testament on Original Sin (peccatum originale originans)
When God created man, he gave him abundance of grace (Gen 1:28; 2:8-15) and was entrusted
with the earth to cultivate it and take care of it. Besides, he was called to live in a community where
perfect harmony reigned between God and humankind, male and female, men and beasts. Still God
saw that it was not good for the man to live alone (Gen 2:18) and so he created for him a helpmate,
to whom Adam gave the name Eve. Adam lived with Eve in perfect agreement with no sense of
shame before each other. Moreover, God entrusted to them the entire creation and subjected
man/woman to certain religious obligations, namely, the duty to admonish, interdict or precept.
Yahweh admonished them with these words: You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden.
Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you
eat of it you shall most surely die.66
The original blessedness, was however violated when the first couple ate from the forbidden fruit
(Gen 3:6). The woman succumbed to the temptation, which the serpent presented to her. In turn,
she tempted Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit. In this way, the first couple violated and
transgressed the divine command and thus rejected the originally established order. Consequently,
(1) God curses them, establishing enmity between the offspring of the woman and that of the
serpent (3:15). (2) According to this admonition, the condemnation extends beyond the sinners to
their descendants. The woman is punished to suffer in labour (Gen 3:16) the man is condemned to
sweat, tilling the accursed soil for his daily bread (Gen 3:17-19). Due to this moral disorder, further
condemnation was to return to the dust from where man was taken. This return is symbol for death
(Gen 3:19). This means also the pain of loss of intimacy with God, expressed both in the feeling of
shame before him and sense of nakedness (Gen 3:10). Ultimately, the couple was expelled from
the Garden, thus distancing man/woman from the tree of life. However, we need to note that God
granted the offspring of the woman an upper hand. Yahweh solemnly proclaims victory through
the person of the son of a woman. The nudity recognized by the couple illustrates the loss of human
and social dignity, a decadence of the state of confidence or relations between human persons.
As far as original sin is concerned, there exists a plurality of interpretations. However, one should
not understand both creation accounts historically or literally, but rather symbolically. The author
aims at describing the cause of evil and distortion of the social and personal dimensions of living.
The author of “the expulsion story thinks symbolically, expressing his understanding in a story of
crime and punishment.”67 The intention of the author is to give explanation to the cause of sin and
evil in human society. For the Yahwist author the root cause of evil is not God but rather
humankind’s disobedience. Therefore, the author declares that an offence stands at the beginning
of human history and that this offence brought ruin to humanity and it is the cause of evil in the
world.
66 Gen 4:16-17. 67 Tatha, Original Sin, 8.
6.3.2 Original Sin from the New Testament Perspective
If one is searching for a scriptural basis for the doctrine of original sin, then, one will certainly find
one in Romans 5:12-21. The passage describes the manner in which the sin of Adam affected all
humankind. In this passage, St. Paul clearly states that “it was through one man that sin came into
the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because
all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). The text “traces death of all men [sic] back to Adam in order to be
able to derive life - the real, eternal life destined for all men-much more manifestly from Christ.”68
In this regard, Paul asserts that “Just as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners [pantes
hermaton], so by one man’s obedience are many to be righteous” (Rom 5:19). It is important that
the text does not only assert that all men are subject to the regime of death through Adam (physical
and moral death), but also the fact that they all became sinners. By implication, this means that the
individual acts of sin are secondary cause and condition that depend on and manifest the existence
of the power of sin already introduced by Adam.
The context of the passage in question, the main concern of Paul is the soteriological significance
of Jesus suffering, death and resurrection. In this regard, he draws a parallel between “the disaster
domain of Adam and the salvation domain of Jesus Christ.”69 In this way, therefore, he succeeds
to bring Adam in the divine plan of salvation as the type of the One (Christ - antitype) who is to
come.70 The salvific significance of the figure of Adam is thus visible against the background of
the role played by Jesus. So also the solidarity of all humankind in sin and death in Adam must be
understood in function of the solidarity of all in the life of and Redemption in Christ.
Besides Saint Paul goes further to draw parallels with the saving action of Christ to all humankind
(1 Cor 15:21-22). Here, Paul shows the influence of the ONE and ALL as classically known in the
case of Adam. The resurrection which is caused by a single individual is already for all who sleep
in Christ. Paul uses typology (Adam/Christ) to establish the certainty and significance of the
resurrection. However, Christ is here understood as an individual distinct from those who are in
solidarity with him in the resurrection. The term solidarity as used in 1 Cor 15:21-22 does not
depict physical descent. The term simply is meant to bring to the light the fact that it is through a
man that physical death came into the world, and this man is Adam the ancestor of all humanity.
In this passage Paul elicits a monogenic view in which mankind descends from Adam through
generation.
The expression “as in Adam all die” needs to be rightly understood. The preposition in does not
bear a local sense, but intends to indicate association or union. For the Ancient Middle East people
most common means of enjoying solidarity was that of belonging to the family through physical
generation, but his was not the only way. People of other races could be associated with the family
by means of other ties such as marriage. Therefore, solidarity with Adam through physical
generation is not an absolute condition. The decisive factor of solidarity in original sin is
participation in the same human nature with Adam.
68 Otto Kuss, Der Rümerbrief, übersetzt und Erklärt. Regensburg: Pustet, 1957, 272-274. 69 Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 175-176. 70 Kasujja, Augustine. Polygenism and the Theology of Original Sin, 142.
If all, in solidarity with Adam have sinned, how then are human beings purified from original sin
and saved from personal sins.71 In the first step, a sinner responding to the call of Christ: “repent,
for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Mt 4:17) undergoes a change of heart. Moved by the
grace of God, the sinner turns away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from
God. In this way, she or he responds to Peter’s call to “repent, and be baptised every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit” (Acts 2:39). According to Rudolf Schnackenburg, conversion culminates in baptism is
perceived as “new life” or “new being.” This is so since the sinner is forgiven not only the inherited
original sin but also personal sins, and thus taken into communion with God and the ecclesial
community.
In the second step, it is noteworthy that salvation consists not only of the remission of sins, but also
of the renewal of the inner life of the believer. This implies a life of, and lifelong struggle against
sinful tendencies in humankind. From a Catholic perspective then, salvation is understood
fundamentally as detachment from that which contradicts the love of God, namely, sin. Moreover,
one cannot speak about salvation without affirming in the same breath the mercy of God, which
frees a sinner from sin through grace. In order to gain a deeper understanding of this doctrine we
will first consider the teaching of Church fathers on this subject, and subsequently, that of the
Council of Orange.72 We will finally explore the teaching of the Council of Trent regarding original
sin.
6.4 Church Fathers on Original Sin
Church fathers wrestled for a long time with the question of original sin. Certain erroneous
teachings or heresies occasioned the Church fathers to restate, clarify and reaffirm the doctrine of
original sin. We would like to make a brief survey about how the fathers understood this doctrine.
6.4.1 Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyons
One of the Church fathers whose contribution to the development of the doctrine of original sin is
notable is Ireneaus, bishop of Lyons. The formalized doctrine of original sin was developed by
Ireneaus around 2 AD. In his struggle against Gnosticism, Ireneaus contrasted the doctrine of the
Gnostics with the view that the fall of Adam was a step in the wrong direction with whom humanity
had solidarity or identity. For this reason, Ireneaus argues that original sin has serious consequences
to humanity. Original sin is the root cause of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement and that
human beings participate in the sin of Adam and consequently, there is a collective guilt. For him
the fall of Adam is like a mistake of a leader of a group that is roped together, who, without
weighing the consequences of his action, drags the whole group into a path from which there is no
exit.
Against Gnostics who taught the human liberty and distinguished humankind as consisting of
ontologically evil and good people, Ireneaus affirms and defends the freedom of the will as gift
from God. He further teaches that even if humankind is fallen the merits of Christ have saved the
dammed humankind from the fall. Moreover, for him, the experience of evil is salutary to us, it
71 Incidentally, we will dedicate a few paragraphs to the nature and the mode of transmission of original sin in our
treatment of the teaching of the Council of Trent on original sin or Decretum super peccato originali. 72 It needs to be noted, however, that both Saint Augustine and the Council of Orange belong to the tradition of the
united Church, and thus both influenced Luther’s theology of justification as well. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic
tradition continued more consistently along the lines of the teaching of both Augustine and the Council of Orange than
Luther.
makes one to esteem God’s kindness. Ireneaus’ concern is “to bring out more clearly the goodness
of God, who despite the rebuffs of men [sic] patiently follows out his plan of mercy.”73 Therefore,
for him the problem raised by the first sin, can only be solved within the broader perspectives of
the theology of redemption.
6.4.2 Tertullian on Original Sin
Like Ireneaus, Tertulian sets himself against the Gnostic deviations and particularly Marcions.
Marcions believed in two Gods, namely demuge and ‘good God’ and played the Old Testament
against the New Testament. Against Marcions’ critique of a bad God who left humankind fall under
the weight of utter perversion (original sin), Tertullian argues that: Man is free, it is himself who
has misused his freedom.74 Although Adam had being forewarned not to eat of the forbidden fruit,
he went ahead and broke the divine precept. Hence, Adam was in every manner fault. He is thus
the author of evil and entry of death in the world. For him God is not the author of evil. The
suffering such as necessity of work, pains of childbirth and death cannot therefore be imputed to
the creator, but only to man’s free will. Nevertheless, like Ireneaus, Tertullian also emphasizes
divine mercy.75 For him God called Adam in order to make him feel ashamed and remorseful to
call him to atonement. Moreover, Tertullian, following Plato, distinguishes between flesh and
spirit, which for him are always in conflict. The rational element is subdivided into irascible and
concupiscible. The irrational element is a consequence of the original sin, with the result that in
man/woman vice has become, as it were a second nature.76 Even if Tertullian did not succeed to
settle this delicate matter, his intension was to disqualify the Marcionists’ teaching.
For Tertullian the sons/daughters of Adam are sullied and under the influence of the devil.77 This
is so since all souls were first contained in his.78 For this reason, the children of Christians are not
stainless. Every soul is considered partaking to Adam until it belongs to Christ, it is sinful and
unclean.79 Tertullian was, however opposed to infant baptism. According to him it is not proper to
baptize infant because they have not committed personal sins. This position is understandable
against the backdrop of his context. According to Wiley Tatha, for instance, that Tertullian objected
to infant baptism, “points to the fact that the notion of an inherited sin – distinct from personal or
actual sin – was not yet embedded in the theological horizon of the early Church writers.”80 The
life setting at the time of Tertullian was characterized by high child mortality rates, which posed a
great challenge to the Christian doctrine of original sin.
To conclude, it is clear that Tertullian takes the account given in Genesis literally, of creation and
of sin. He does not elaborate a theory of the privileges of Adam and Eve in paradise, nor does he
analyse the nature of the sin. For him it suffices that it was an act of great disobedience and that
man was free to choose otherwise. The consequences of sin are physical, mortal and moral death
(vitium originis). The consequences of the original defect are passed on through procreation.
73 Rondet, Original Sin, 49. 74 Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, VI, 6-9. 75 Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, XI, 1-2. 76 Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, XVI, 2. 77 For Tertullian, of all human beings, it is only Christ, the son of God who remained untouched by the sin of Adam. 78 This thesis which is at the extremes of Christian Hellenism, will weigh heavily upon Augustinian theology. 79 Tertullian writes: “Omnis anima eo usque in Adma censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, peccatrix autem quia
immunda, (nec) recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societal.” Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, XL, 1. 80 Tatha, Wiley. Original Sin: Origins, Development and Contemporary New Jersey: NJ: Paulist Press, 2002, 6.
However, after baptism in which a believer is taken up to Christ, these consequences have no more
power to divine one from God and his fellow humans. In this way, there is a strong link between
the fall and redemption. We now turn to the teaching of one of the Alexandrian fathers.
6.4.3 Clement of Alexandria
In his work Hortatory Discourse, Clement of Alexandria mentions the serpent, seducer of Eve,
through whom sin entered the world. Clement believes that Christians are at first children of wrath,
because they have been snatched of from death by the coming of the divine Logos.81 Clement
recalls the beginning of man as follows:
When the first man played without restraint, he was still God's little child. Then, yielding to pleasure
(the serpent symbolizes pleasure….), he let himself be ensnared by his desires. The child, having in
his disobedience become a man and having been indocile towards his father, was ashamed before
God. Such was the power of pleasure: man, whose simplicity kept him free, found himself bound by
his sins.
Clement goes on:
Then, the Lord willed to free him from his bonds. Imprisoned in the flesh (what a divine mystery!),
he subdued the serpent; he reduced the tyrant - that is to say, death - to slavery, and, what is even
more extraordinary, he shows that man, misled by pleasure, prisoner of corruption, is delivered by
his outstretched arms. O wondrous mystery! The Lord is stretched out and man is lifted up once more;
he who had fallen in paradise receives in his submission a still greater recompense - heaven. Since
the Word himself has come from heaven to us, it seems to me that we should no longer pay heed to
any merely human school of thought, nor should we concern ourselves about the Athenians or the
rest of Greece.82
For Clement, a human person is created in the image of God (imago Dei), but entangled in a body.
Human being is endowed with the gift of freedom and thus he or she is responsible for his or her
actions. Virtue is therefore a struggle to master one’s passions. Clement of Alexandria is neither
Augustine nor Ireneaus. He is profoundly rooted in Scripture, but he is less a theologian or exegete
than an apologist or a Christian philosopher.
6.4.4 St. Augustine of Hippo on Original Sin
It is particularly difficult to investigate the doctrine of original sin as presented by Saint Augustine
of Hippo (354-430). This is so since his position changed or rather advanced from time to time.
Nevertheless, in as far as doctrine of original sin are concerned, scholars consider St. Augustine to
be the fountainhead.83
According to Augustine, before the fall of the fore parents Adam and Eve, humankind was blessed and enjoyed communion with God (Gen 3:1-24). After the primal sin, however, all Adam’s descendants passed under the domination of sin, and were thus rendered sinful and helpless. Augustine is deeply convinced that the responsibility for, and effects of this sin, fall on all humans because symbolically all humankind was present in Adam’s loins at the time of the fall. Therefore, sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin and so death spread to all in
81 Clement, Protreptikos, 11, 12, 2 (ed. Mondersert and Plassart, Sources chretiennes, II, p. 69). 82 Clement, Protreptikos in Mondersert and Plassart, Sources chretiennes, II, p. 99-101. 83 Saint Augustine, The City of God, ed. Augustinus Aurelius, trans., Gerald Walsh (New York, NY: Fathers of the
Church Publication, 1977), XIII, 14. (hereafter, De civitate Dei).
whom all have sinned. In this way, due to Adam’s fall, all humanity became a massa damnata or a mass of perdition, a condemned crowd.
However, the interpretation of the phrase in whom, remains very problematic and thus is a matter
of debate. Augustine translates it as human solidarity with Adam’s sin in virtue of their presence
in Adams seed. The original sin and its effects, namely, guilt and death, can only be cleansed
through the baptismal grace administered to children or adults. In De civitate Dei, Augustine asserts
that one is justified through baptism. For him, no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven “except a
man who is born of water and the Holy Spirit.” God’s grace, imparted through the Holy Spirit at
baptism, effects one’s justification. For the bishop of Hippo, evil desire (vitium) or concupiscence
remain in the justified even after justification. Already, in his 396/7 essay to Simplician: De diversis
quaestionibus ad Simplician, Augustine describes concupiscence as “perversity and lack of order
that is, turning away from the Creator who is more excellent, and a turning to creatures which are
inferior to him.”84
It needs to be stressed that for Augustine, concupiscentia, taken in its general sense means desire.
Carnal concupiscence, however, is a desire for things forbidden and thus a desire for sin. Mathijs
Lamberigts holds that “there are several forms of concupiscence in Augustine.” The first form is
concupiscentia bona, which desires for spiritual things and thus desires for God (Gal 5:17). The
second type is concupiscentia naturalis, which means a desire for happiness and natural desires
such as a desire to marry. The third form of concupiscence is concupiscentia carnis, which “is an
evil, a striving which appears autonomous, heedless of the will and disorder, a source of shame.”
At times, it is difficult to determine which type of concupiscence that Augustine is talking about.
In such a case, the context determines the kind of concupiscentia under discussion. We need to
note, however, that when the bishop of Hippo uses concupiscentia (carnis), he does not mean evil
desires related to sexuality per se. Rather he thereby underlines, as Saint Paul does, the antinomy
between flesh and spirit as made manifest in greed, avarice, obstinacy, ostentation and sexual
desires. Augustine therefore, deliberately avoids limiting concupiscentia to sexual desire, even
though it finds its highest expression in sexual desires.
Moreover, against those who argue that concupiscence is not really sin and that it only leads to sin
insofar as one consents to it, Augustine contends that to think in this way, is to conceive of
concupiscentia carnis in an ill-defined sense. According to him, it is wrong to have desires opposed
to the spirit. The perfection of righteousness consists of the desires of the spirit to remain
unopposed. Obviously, the concupiscence that remains in the justified produces shameful desires
even when consent is denied. In other words, Augustine’s settled position with regard to
concupiscentia carnis is that carnal concupiscence, even if it is not acted on, is in itself a sin.
In his work, Marriage and Desire, Augustine further radicalizes his position. He maintains that
“concupiscence of flesh is not forgiven at baptism in such a way that it no longer exists, but in such a way that it is not counted as sin.” This implies that prior to baptism, concupiscence creates guilt,
but thereafter, even if it remains evil, it is not reckoned as sinful. After baptism, concupiscentia
carnis remains a disordered desire, however, it can and, indeed, does, provide an occasion for personal sins and so is a law of sin (lex peccati). For the bishop of Hippo, even if one conceives of
concupiscentia as sin, it is still valid, and important to speak of actual sin only when there is personal assent to the evil desire. Nevertheless, Augustine is specific that concupiscentia carnis
can be regarded as an actual sin only in a figurative sense, because it is sin in as far as “it originates
84 Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplician, 1.2.18. See also Couenhoven, "St. Augustine's Doctrine," 377.
from sin and leads into sin.” It is significant that Augustine, unlike Luther, has a rather positive
view of concupiscentia carnis to the effect that even if it leads to sin, it can, and must be overcome, thanks to the grace of God.
Furthermore, Augustine does not consider concupiscence itself to be original sin, but only a sign
of original sin present in a person and which is a punishment for sin. Thus, in his Contra duas
epistulas pelagianorum Augustine can maintain with regard to concupiscentia carnis that:
Even if it is called sin, it bears that name, not because it is a sin, but because it is produced by a sin
[…] this concupiscence of the flesh is itself forgiven in baptism so that, though it is contracted by
those who are born, it does no harm to those who are reborn […] since its guilt contracted by birth
has been forgiven by rebirth. For this reason it is no longer a sin, though it is called a sin.85
Luther appropriated the insight that concupiscence is sin, although a “ruled” sin. Building on
Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence, Luther constructed his teaching that the believer is simul
iustus et peccator. Hence, Luther’s understanding of concupiscence as sin is clearly influenced by
views of Augustine. Regarding this position, the Council of Trent maintains that even if
concupiscence has been called sin, the Church has never understood it to be sin in the proper sense.
This aside, the bishop of Hippo still believes that after baptism, the concupiscence of the baptised
has been forgiven and hence that it does not rule. For Augustine, what changes this fundamental
human orientation is the fact that a Christian is incorporated into Christ, not just completely, but
really. By being engrafted into Christ, the sinner is reborn and receives actual righteousness and
not just forgiveness. The guilt is forgiven and the sin is counted as forgiven, but disordered desires
remain.
A) Original Sin and First Sin
Tradition Christian theology, following St. Augustine distinguishes between first sin and original
sin. 1) The first sin (Peccatum originale originans) and 2) original sin (Peccatum originale
originatum). The former refers to the sin of Adam as described in the book of Genesis and the later
refers to the manner in which the sin of Adam affects all human beings. Scholars consider St.
Augustine as the chief exponent of this distinction. We shall first discuss the first sin and its
consequences. The clause, “in which all have sinned,” is in the works of St. Augustine cautiously,
rightly, and unambiguously expressed. With regard to the distinction between the first sin and the
original sin, Augustine states:
For if you understand that sin to be that which by one man entered into the world, “in which [sin] all
have sinned,” it is clear that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit
and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have
sinned, means another thing; since all were that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one
man that is understood, “In which [one man] all have sinned,” what again can be plainer than even
this clear statement? We read, indeed, of those being justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason
of the secret communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes everyone who cleaves to
the Lord “one spirit” with Him, although His saints also imitate His example; can I find, however,
any similar statement made of those who have imitated His saints? Can any man be said to be justified
in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent men whose authority stands high among
the people of God?
Moreover, Augustine states that:
85 The emphasis is ours. Augustine, “Answers to the Two Letters of the Pelagians” (Contra duas epistulas
pelagianorum), 1.13.27.
We are no doubt said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was said to him, “In thee shall all nations be blessed” - for Christ’s sake, who is his seed according to the flesh; which is still more clearly expressed in the parallel passage: “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.” I do not believe that any one can find it anywhere stated in the Holy Scriptures, that a man has ever sinned or still sins “in the devil,” although all wicked and impious men “imitate” him. The apostle, however, has declared concerning the first man, that “in him all have sinned;” and yet there is still a contest about the propagation of sin, and men oppose to it I know not what nebulous theory of “imitation.”86
Having reflected on Augustine’s teaching on original sin we would like to turn to the English
Fathers teaching on original sin.
6.4.5 Peter Abelard
A medieval theologian Peter Abelard opposes the fact of original sin. Abelard asks:
Why would not God, like any good Lord, pardon, on whatever condition seemed appropriate, those
who repented? Why resort to the cruelty which subjected his son to a pitiless death? What, after all,
was so terrible about ordinary sins of ordinary people, who themselves were bidden to forgive sins,
what made them incapable of receiving forgiveness in return for love?87
6.4.6 Anselm of Canterbury
According to Anselm of Canterbury, human sin created a debt owed to God. Given the
transcendental nature God, whom the first couple offended by sin, no human person could pay this
debt. For this reason, only God-made man, the incarnate son of God could pay the debt.
Consequently, through the incarnation God took the initiative to seek the lost humankind. Hence,
the fall and its subsequent original sin, is the raison d’être for the incarnation. Therefore, Christ
paid back the debt through his death on the cross. However, the death of Christ on the cross needs
to be understood properly. For this reason, we will dedicate a subsection which will deal with this
question per se.
6.5 Original Sin in the Teachings of Councils
6.5.1 The Council of Carthage (418)
The first Council to official promulgate and define a doctrine of original sin is the Council of
Carthage. The provincial Council of Carthage was convoked on 1st
May 418 as a reaction against
Pelagianism, a heresy that denied original sin and its consequences. According to the Council of
Carthage there is in man an original sin, a sin which originates from Adam. The expression used
by the Council to designate original sin was vitium originale (original fault, defect, blemish or
error). The Council emphasizes that corporeal death was caused by Adam’s sin. Adam’s death was
not the result of his corporeal nature, but rather it was a consequence of his first sin.
In the second Canon of the Council specify that original sin and its consequences is transmit from
Adam, the first sinner, through generation. The Council further declared that as a consequence of
the sin of Adam, corporeal death came into the world. For this reason, therefore, all children must
86 This was the Pelagian term, expressive of their dogma that original sin stands in the following [or “imitation”] of
Adam, instead of being the fault and corruption of the nature of every man who is naturally engendered of Adam’s
offspring; which doctrine is expressed by Augustine’s word, propagatio, “propagation.” 87 Tatha, Original Sin, 7.
be baptized to be remitted of the original sin. It was also stated, however, that since infants cannot
commit personal sins, the sin which is cleansed in baptism can only be original sin. The doctrine
of the Council of Carthage on original sin was adapted by the subsequent councils.
6.5.2 The Council of Orange on Original Sin
Like the Council of Carthage, the Council of Orange, particularly its second session (3rd
July 529)
was convoked precisely in response to the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This
controversy had to do with individual’s role in their own salvation vis-à-vis the role of grace.
Inspired by the spirit of St. Augustine, the Council Fathers stresses that the operation of grace
precedes every effort towards faith, every salutary act, and even the preparation for justification.
Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, and that there is no such thing
as a sinful nature or original sin. Based on this idea, they maintained that, once again, one could
achieve a state of sinless perfection in this life. The Council also deals with the semi-Pelagian
doctrine according to which the human race, albeit fallen, is still good enough to obtain the grace
of God through the wilful actions of an unredeemed human person. Against the former position,
the Council declares:
If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he
declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin,
which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to
God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom 5:12).88
Furthermore, in paragraph 18, the Council maintains that operative grace initiates justification in
baptism. Grace therefore, restores, improves, and confers the justness of God on the justified by
the merits of Christ. It needs to be emphasized that the work of grace after justification is to initiate
good works (initium salutis), perseverance, Christian fortitude and the love of God. The idea of the
universal necessity of grace for justification is another contribution that the Council of Orange
offers to the theology of justification. With regard to this idea, all human beings stand in need of
grace in order to be able to move from a state of evil to a righteous state. In line with this, the
Council rejected the doctrine of predestination to evil, just as the Council of Trent would reject this
in 1546. On the contrary, the Council affirmed that salvation is within the reach of all baptised
Christians. However, the fact that salvation is within the reach of human beings does not necessarily
exclude the grace of God.
The contribution of Augustine and the Council of Orange is of paramount importance in the
historical development of the doctrine of justification. However, the Church did not absorb the
entirety of Augustine’s doctrinal system. The Council of Trent, for instance, discarded some
aspects of his teaching on predestination. Although the Council establishes a firm doctrine of
justification, it nevertheless keeps silent about concupiscence, as well as the transmission of
original sin. However, the Council integrates doctrinal and practical aspects of justification
comprehensively. The necessity for those who are justified to fulfil their duties was well
underlined. This assertion elicits two insights, namely, that a Christian does not lack grace, and that
grace does not accomplish everything for the justified person. Having explored the most important
aspects of Augustine and the Council of Orange’s theology of justification, we are now disposed
to analyse the Council of Trent’s view of justification.
88 Ibid., no. 175, Canon 2.
6.5.3 The Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Original Sin
Convoked by Pope Paul III, the three epochs of the Council of Trent (1545-7, 1551-2, and 1562– 3) was held in Trent, Italy, and consisted of twenty-five sessions. The Council of Trent which was
convoked by Pope Paul III, was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. The Council took up the
doctrine of original sin (Decretum de peccato originali) in 1546, during the fifth session.
Fundamentally, the Council’s key concern was not only apologetics against the Reformers teaching
regarding justification, but also, and in particular to promulgate a comprehensive and normative
Catholic doctrine of justification. Hermeneutically speaking, the Council fathers opted, as they
ought, to begin with the decree on original sin. This was a logical terminus ad quo given the fact
that the teaching on justification presupposes a sinful human condition. Subsequently, the decree
on original sin is followed by the teaching on justification, which in turn, anticipates the decree on
the sacraments in general. In a manner not yet surpassed by the previous Council, the Council
fathers defined the doctrine of original sin. The Council states:
If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam which, one by origin and passed on to all by propagation and
not by imitation [quod origine unum est et progapatione, non imitatione transfusum], iheres in
everyone as something proper to each, is removed by human natural powers, or by any remedy other
than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own
blood, being made righteousness and sanctification and redemption; or if anyone denies that the actual
merit of Christ Jesus is applied to both adults and infants through the sacrament of baptism duly
administered in the form of the church: let him be anathema.89
It is evidently clear that Trent takes over the second canon of the Council of Carthage almost
literally. With regard to the decree on original sin, four themes received special attention: (1) the
nature and mode of the propagation of original sin, (2) the injury resulting from original sin, (3)
the remedy for original sin and (4) the effects of this remedy. However, it is observed that the
doctrine of original sin engendered less acrimony during the Council’s sessions. This is largely
because the Reformers and the Catholic Church had a similar view of the human predicament after
the fall.
a) The Universal Sinfulness of Humankind
The Council of Trent, standing in continuity with Augustine, vehemently affirmed that originally,
the human will existed in accordance with the will of God. Due to Adam’s prevarication, however,
humankind sinned, and thus lost their original blessedness and innocence. Following St. Paul words
in Rom 5:12, the Council fathers declared that the diffusion of the sin is by propagation and not
by imitation. The human will became subject to the devil, a condition that was inherited by all
Adam’s progeny (Gen 3:1–20). This human predicament is referred to as original sin. From then
on, humankind became impotent and helpless with regard to its salvation. Hence, humanity stands
in need of God’s mercy and forgiveness. In this connection, for the fathers, the only remedy for
original sin is baptism through which God’s grace is given as forma sanitatis. In this regard, the
Council fathers declare that:
Everyone must acknowledge and confess, that, since all lost their innocence in the sin of Adam-
having become unclean, and, as (in the words of the apostle) by nature children of wrath, as is set out
in the decree on original sin, and under the power of the devil and death, that not only could the
89 The Council of Trent. “Decree on Original Sin: Decretum super peccato originali.” In Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils: Trent to Vatican II, edited by Norman Tanner and Giuseppe Alberigo, 665-670. London: Sheed and Ward,
1990, article 3.
Gentiles not be freed from or rise above it by the force of nature, but neither could the Jews even by
the letter of the law of Moses, through their free will, for all that it had been weakened and sapped in
strength, was in no way extinct.90
For this reason, the human will retains an inclination to sin, namely, concupiscence or
concupiscentia. The fathers, however, stressed that ex sese “concupiscence, when not followed by
action, is not sin.”
The significance of the differences between Augustine and the Council of Trent regarding the
notion of concupiscence should not be underestimated. For Augustine, “concupiscence of flesh is
not forgiven at baptism in such a way that it no longer exists, but in such a way that it is not counted
as sin” Understood in this manner, then, it implies that sin is forgiven in baptism, not so that it no
longer exists, but so that it is no longer imputed. Hence, it is called sin not because it is actual sin,
but because it is produced by sin and is an occasion for other sins. What is at stake here is whether
concupiscence is or is not sin. Succinctly, the central issue is the precise nature of concupiscentia.
For the Council of Trent, concupiscence may not be qualified as sin unless one has willingly and
knowingly consented to it. It is not insignificant, however, with regard to human nature that the
fathers noted that concupiscentia is not as such sin, but rather, an inner disposition to sin. How
then can we interpret the expression not as such?
At this stage, the question that needs to be asked is: how is peccatum originale transmitted? In this
regard, the Council reiterates that original sin is transmitted, not by imitation, but by propagation
(propagatione, non imitatione). Consequently, sinners have to be baptised in order that they may
be cleansed from the sin contracted during their birth. However, Trent does not give a precise
explanation as to what imitatione means as it is taken for granted that propagatione means physical
descent. Through the grace of baptism, original sin and concupiscentia no longer have power over
the baptised because they are forgiven and inwardly regenerated. They are baptised into the death
of Christ (Rom 6:3) and the old man is buried with them in baptism (Col 2:12). The universal
sinfulness of humankind is in, through Christ abolished, and replaced by universal salvation.
b) The Anthropological Aspects of the Tridentine Righteousness
The Council of Trent sets forth a positive view of a human person. The Council fathers believe that
even if the will of humankind is seriously wounded, it is certainly not beyond redemption.
Humankind still possess a free will and therefore can choose between good and evil. Apparently,
in Canon 5, the Council had Luther as a target as it clearly asserts:
If anyone says that, after the sin of Adam, human free will was lost and blotted out, or that its existence
is purely nominal, a name without substance, indeed a fiction introduced into the church by Satan:
Let him be anathema.91
For Trent therefore, humankind can be saved, thanks to the merits of Christ. However, preparation
and proper disposition are necessary conditions for justification. The Council fathers are convinced
that even prior to justification, the sinner is already reliant on God’s predisposing grace or gratia
praeveniens as a first instalment of grace so to speak. This does not imply that the sinner remains
90 DJ 1. The Council stressed that the sinner, prompted by God’s grace (cum excitante Deo) and in the merits of Christ
(merito Christi), can return to God through the sacrament of reconciliation and regains the grace that was lost. The
Council fathers called this kind of justification a second plank (Quam secundum post) for grace shattered in a storm.
It is for those who fall into sin that Christ instituted the sacrament of reconciliation. 91 JD Canon 5.
passive, but rather, that he or she is an active agent of his or her own justification. Thus, the fathers
maintain that
Although God touches a person’s heart through the light of the Holy Spirit, neither does that person
completely do nothing in receiving that moment of grace, for one can also reject it; nor is he able, by
his own free will and without God’s grace, to move himself towards justice in God’s sight.92
This means that the human person cooperates with the grace of God, at least by rejecting it. In the
first sight, one could mistakenly accuse the Council fathers of condoning a moderate Pelagianism.
In this connection, one may argue that if the human person can reject the gratia preveniens, then,
this implies that it is his or her initiative when he or she accepts it. However, a closer examination
of the above formulation reveals that even the ability to accept the gratia preveniens is itself a
result of God’s grace. This should not therefore be construed - as Pelagius did - as an implication
than one has the ability to become just by one’s own free will without God’s grace de condigno.
There is yet another deeper consideration of which we must not lose sight, namely, guided by this
predisposing grace, sinners take several steps: First, they attain the faith that comes from hearing
the word of God or fides ex auditu. Second, they acknowledge themselves to be sinners, while at
the same time hoping for God’s mercy. Third, they begin to love God as the source of all justice
and so they repent and resolutely turn away from evil. This must occur before baptism.
Undoubtedly, one’s disposition to receive baptism is inspired by one’s desire “to begin a new life
and to keep God’s commandments.” In this regard, one may raise the question: how relevant are
these stages to children who are incapable of such a commitment? We would argue that it was
simply not the intention of the fathers to offer a treatise on the baptism of infants, but rather of
adults. Nevertheless, according to Austin Flannery, infant baptism is to be understood as baptism
into the faith of parents. In this way, like an adult, a child is capable of becoming a child of God.
When the child becomes conscious, however, free will continues to be moved by divine grace
bestowed at baptism to either continue to be a child of God or to choose otherwise. In baptism,
therefore, justifying grace is granted and one is justified. The Tridentine justification not only
brings about the remission of sins (renovatio), but also, the sanctification (sanctificatio) of the
inward being.
92 DJ 5. This article on merits needs to be read together with chapter eight of the Council document. Human cooperation
is thus not the source of justification for “neither faith or work merits the gift of justification.”
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE MYSTERY OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND EVIL
7.1 The Question Evil and Suffering
At this juncture, the question that preoccupies us is the origin and relationship between sin, evil
and suffering in the world. If God created all “very good,” then where does evil come from? Why
does God permit evil and suffering? The Catholic faith perceives good and evil as reflected in the
world as the consequences of prime evil (the fall of our First parents).
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sin is described as a going contrary to the patterns
established in creation. Sin is “contrary to a person’s nature and interrupts the journey of the
individual, the community, and the environment towards fulfilling their purpose.”93 Sin is not
intrinsic in the nature but is a result of personal decision. Sin cannot be interpreted “as merely a
developmental flaw, psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an
inadequate social structure, etc.”94 Since God, who is essentially good created humanity, it cannot
be said to be naturally evil.
A closer reading of Genesis 2:12 which speaks about the tree of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ evokes the
awareness that human beings must recognize the trust that God has entrusted him.95 In this regard,
humanity is not only dependent on the creator but also he must respect the rules of nature and moral
norms that govern his freedom. This implies that by sinning, human beings “decide freely against
God, against the requirement of man’s creaturely status and therefore against their own good.”96
Sin implies a misuse of the gift of creation, namely, freedom. It is a violation of the creaturely
condition and the harmony with the created world and above all with God himself.
From this point of view, therefore, we must perceive physical evil from the perspective of
perfection of creation, for which it is destined. In his divine plan and wisdom, God willed that the
world be oriented towards perfection. Therefore, as long as creation has not attained to its full
perfection, evil will always exist. In a world that is always in a state of becoming, the physical good
exists alongside the physical evil. With sin, physical evil entered into the world, into the human
history and to social situations and institutions that are contrary to divine goodness in creation.
There is, therefore, a link between sin, particularly the original sin and evil. Original sin is a
deprivation of original holiness and justice. Original sin is contracted not committed; it a state and
not an act. In this regard, Scripture draws a link between sin, evil and suffering: “Just as sin came
into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all
have sinned.” (Rom 5:12).
93 Njoroge wa Ngugi, Creation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Basis for Catechesis in Post‐Colonial Africa
(Nairobi: Paulines Publications), 153. 94 CCC 387. 95 CCC 396. 96 wa Ngugi, Creation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 154. See also CCC 398.
7.2 The Relationship Between Sin and Suffering
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sin has social, cosmic and religious
consequences. The consequences of sin include the soul lost control over the body; led to tensions
in the relationship between man and woman, thus being marked with lust and domination; a
shattered human solidarity and a broken harmony between creation and humanity and subjection
to decay and corruption. Other consequences include: polytheism and idolatry. Scholars such as
Ramon Martinez de Pison Liebanas have difficulties to accept the causal relationship between sin
and evil. However, the Catechism insists that:
The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God, it is before God that he
laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing. Illness becomes
a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing. It is the experience of Israel that illness
is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life:
“for I am the Lord your healer.” (Ex 15:26).97
Ramon Martinez de Pison Liebanas accepts nonetheless that through the experience of suffering
human beings can grow and become more human. Suffering makes us more human as fire purifies
metals. Suffering brings us to direct confrontation with the deep and radical question about the
meaning and purpose of life and about God.
At the deepest level, original sin and sins of individuals have led to what is often referred to as “the
sin of the world.” The sin of the world could be referred to as structural sin which negatively
influence the life of humankind through communal situations and social structures. Some examples
of structural sin include imperialism, racism, oppression, corruption, terrorism and religious
intolerance. These consequences of sin are visible in areas such as religion, education, social,
politics and moral life in general. Therefore, there is a link between (original) sin, evil and
suffering. However, we need to note that even if evil and suffering are a consequence of sin,
not every sort of evil or suffering is a fruit of a sinful condition.
However, “even if we must use great caution in judging man’s suffering as a consequence of
concrete sins (cf. Job), nevertheless suffering cannot be divorced from the sin of the beginnings,
from what Saint John calls ‘the sin of the world,’ from the sinful background of the personal actions
and social processes in human history.”98
7.3 Suffering and Contingency
Even if evil and suffering are a result of sin, nevertheless, ontologically speaking, pain and
suffering could result from the state of being finite. A finite being will always suffer the impact of
other beings upon it because it reflects once contingency and finitude. Because of its limitation
there will be occasions when limits are reached that threaten the existence of a finite being. Then
the finite being faces damage or destruction. For example, when someone has attained old age,
97 CCC 1502. 98 Pope John Paul II. The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering: Salvifici Doloris. Paulines Publications Africa,
Nairobi, 2000, 1‐47, no. 5.
then, naturally death follows. In this case, death is a sign of our finitude; it is a sign of our
contingency. When a finite being is conscious, it will consciously experience the reaching of its
limits. This conscious experience is felt as pain or suffering. Thus, suffering occurs when a finite
being is pushed to its limits by forces of its environment or its own free actions. Thus, suffering
is an indication that limits have been reached. From this observation, it could be said that evil
and suffering has an intrinsic relationship with human finitude. The only way to avoid the
possibility of suffering is to avoid finitude.
According to Ramon Martinez, “death is one of the characteristics of finite and contingent
existence.” For him, “death is not the price paid for the sin at the origins, but the requirement for
everything that is living....” The Judeo‐christian tradition has always linked death to sin. This link
is particularly notable in the Letter to the Romans:
Well then; it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death
has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned even through sin is not
reckoned when there is no law. Nonetheless, death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over
those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam’s was. He prefigured the one who
was to come....99
According to Ramon Martinez, this Pauline link between sin and death has nothing to do with
physical death. The main point in Rom 5: 12‐21 is not ‘the sin at the origins,’ the text speaks rather
about the “universality of God’s gift of salvation in Jesus in a negative way. Death is rejected,
transformed into murder or experience with the greatest anxiety.” Therefore, death is the last stage
of life; it is the culmination of a full life or the perception of the greatest solitude. Death is part and
parcel of the structure of the created being and life, even though it retains a mysterious side.
Suffering, from which is at times associated with death has a redemptive meaning and value in that
suffering brings us closer to God. Suffering is “like a medicine that purifies us and makes us humble
– or more submissive.”100 And to the question: Why does God permit evil and suffering? It needs
to be reiterated that God causes neither evil nor suffering; on the contrary, he is a compassionate
God. He comes to meet the victim in Jesus Christ. In this case, Christ is “the revelation of a God
who is not only present beside us in time of sorrow, but who is above all the first victim of human
suffering.”101
Before we conclude our dialogue with Ramon Martinez de Pison we hereby strongly disagree with
the refusal to base sin, suffering and death to the sin at the beginnings. The Church has always
understood and emphasized this link in an unambiguous way.
In conclusion, it has become clear that God does not cause or permit evil. On the contrary, God
forbids evil. Evil and suffering are a fruit of human sin and misuse of freedom. With freedom
comes the possibility for sin. God has already acted to prevent and forbid evil. First, God created
99 Rom 5:12‐21. 100 Ibid., 132‐133 101 Ibid., 136.
the world that is good. Secondly, even when human being had sinned God did not abandon him in
his sin but rather he acted through the life, death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ. Christ
suffered in order to grant us forgiveness of our sins and he sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to
resist evil. Therefore, God expresses his response to evil through mercy, forgiveness and
redemption.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF LAST THINGS
8.1 Introduction
The study of the Last Things is the branch of sacred theology that studies what lies beyond
man/woman and the world. It explains what revelation contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition and tells us about the events that shall take place at the end of the world and those following
each person’s death.
This study is sometimes called de novissimis (“last things” in Latin), and also eschatology (from the
Greek eskhata, “last things,” and logos, “study”). Both titles emphasize that it deals with the end,
with the ultimate events of both the world and history, and of each person’s life on earth. The study
of the Last Things is usually placed toward the end of the theology curriculum. This subject is closely
linked with the study of creation and Redemption. Moreover, it heavily depends on the truths that are
provided by metaphysics on one hand and revelation on the other.
It will be helpful, therefore, to recall the main principles of what we may call Christian anthropology
- the principal truths about man/woman, his nature, origin, and end. Some of these truths are attainable
through reason alone, and others only through divine revelation.
a) What is Man/Woman?
Man/Woman is a being who is directly created by God in his origin. Two elements or principles
constitute man/woman, namely, a material body and an immortal and spiritual soul. These two are
substantially united to each other; they constitute only one substance, the soul acting as substantial
form of the body. Each person has his own soul, directly created by God when it is infused into the
body. The body, on the other hand, comes from the parents through generation. The whole human
race comes from one couple.
This particular teaching is especially relevant today. Some emphasize the personal unity of
man/woman to the extent of reducing his being to pure matter. They thus deny the existence of the
spiritual soul which is proved by experience and metaphysics, and always upheld by the Magisterium.
Others claim that the body-soul duality of man/woman is an idea of Hellenic rather than biblical
origin. This leads to denying intermediate eschatology as the events that befall man/woman between
death and resurrection.
Those who claim that the Church’s doctrine about human is based on Hellenic dualism show great
ignorance of both Greek philosophy and biblical teachings on the body-soul composition of human
being. Hellenic anthropology and biblical anthropology differ greatly in their principles, methods of
analysis, and conclusions. It is true, though, that Tradition, in order to convey the concept of human
that is found in Sacred Scripture, has used Hellenic-like terminology, but it has retained a strictly
biblical content. As a summary, we can say:
The doctrine of faith on the nature of man [sic] is clear and constant. Man [sic] is described as a being
composed of body and soul, which are joined together in a profound unity. This duality in no way
resembles that “dualism” having such derogatory connotations in Anthropology. Actually, “dualists”
are those who, lacking an understanding of the intimate union between body and soul, conceive the
marvelous human microcosm as two things (matter and spirit) accidentally and superficially united like
water in a glass. These comparisons are used by Neoplatonic dualists, and Gnostics, to express their idea
of man [sic]. Against that doctrine, we must affirm that the body and the soul are intimately joined
together, forming a single being. But those in the opposite extreme also go against reality and the
doctrine of the Church. Overreacting perhaps against a stereotyped dualism, or because of materialistic
prejudices, they reduce man [sic] to mere matter or deny the specific properties of the components of
man [sic], like the spirituality and immortality of the soul.102
8.2 Death
The doctrine on man/woman’s eternal destiny is especially relevant today. Materialistic trends, setting
their goals in the goods of this life, can completely erase from our minds any thought of the afterlife:
the fact that, after death, man/woman is destined to reach his definitive, eternal destiny. After losing
sight of God,103 the next step is usually the loss of the sense of sin, which puts man/woman in danger
of eternal perdition. The question of our eternal destiny forces us to face a tremendous reality: the
extreme alternatives of eternal salvation and eternal damnation. For this reason, the Pope declares:
Nor can the Church omit, without serious mutilation of her essential message, a constant catechesis on
what traditional Christian language calls the four last things of man: death, judgment (universal and
particular), hell and heaven. In a culture that tends to imprison man in the earthly life at which he is
more or less successful, the Pastors of the Church are asked to provide a catechesis that will reveal and
illustrate with the certainties of faith what comes after the present life: beyond the mysterious gates of
death, an eternity of joy in communion with God or the punishment of separation from him. Only in this
eschatological vision can one realize the exact nature of sin and feel decisively moved to penance and
reconciliation.104
8.2.1 Notion of Death
Death is a fact of experience. We see people dying every day, yet the real nature of death escapes us.
We can observe only that, after a given moment, a certain organism is no longer alive. It seems to
lose its unifying vital principle, and decays. Philosophically speaking, death is defined as the
separation of body and soul. This wider and deeper insight transcends the mere experimental and
sensible evidence. Since the soul is the body’s vital principle and the substantial form of man/woman,
this separation brings about the disintegration or corruption of the body, the material organism that,
up to then, had been animated by the soul. In Sacred Scripture, to die is “to depart” or to “be away
from the body” (Phil 1:23; 2 Cor 5:8). These and other analogous expressions suggest that death is
the dissolution of the unity in man[sic], or the moment in which the soul leaves the body. The
decomposition of the body is evident, but simple beings (those that are not substantially composed)
like pure spirits or the soul cannot be dissolved or decomposed.
Death, understood as the separation of body and soul, pertains to the doctrine of the faith since it is
expressly affirmed in both the Old and the New Testaments (cf. Wis 3:2; 7:6; Eccl 12:6–7; Phil 1:21,
102 Manuel Guerra, El Enigma del Hombre (Pamplona, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1978), 162–163. 103 Cf. John Paul II, Ap. Ex. Reconciliatio et Poenitentia, 18. 104 Ibid., 26.
23; 2 Tm 4:6; 2 Cor 5:8–9). It is absolutely necessary to assert the survival and subsistence of the
soul after death. It is demonstrable by reason alone, and has been repeatedly taught by the Church.
The whole of eschatology rests on this premise.
The Church affirms that a spiritual element survives and subsists after death, an element endowed with
consciousness and will, so that the “human self” subsists. To designate this element, the Church uses
the word “soul,” the accepted term in the usage of Scripture and Tradition. Although not unaware that
this term has various meanings in the Bible, the Church thinks that there is no valid reason for rejecting
it; moreover, she considers that the use of some word as a vehicle is absolutely indispensable in order
to support the faith of Christians.105
The Fifth Lateran Council (a.d. 1513) solemnly defined the spirituality and the immortality of the
soul. It expressly recalled the formula used by the General Council of Vienna (1311–1312) against
the errors of Peter John Olivi. After the separation of body and soul, the body decays while the soul
subsists by virtue of its spiritual nature. Later on, we will study in detail the situation of the separated
soul. Since each human has an individual soul, which is created at the moment of informing the body,
a person dies only once. There is no more than one death. We can, of course, use death analogically
to refer to sin, since it causes the loss of grace, and therefore, the loss of supernatural life. Common
experience also shows that one dies only once. Moreover, the epistle to the Hebrews clearly states
that “it is appointed for men to die once” (Heb 9:27). On the other hand, we know that our Lord
resurrected people, as in the case of Lazarus (cf. Jn 11:41ff). These were not the final and definitive
resurrections that we will consider later. The Magisterium has not said anything on this matter, but
most theologians hold that these deaths were only provisional in nature. It was as such that God
ordained them to happen, since these people were destined to live again by a miracle, and later on die
once more. Obviously, these were completely extraordinary and exceptional cases.
8.2.2 Cause and Origin of Death
The first question to examine is the reason for death. Divine revelation teaches us in no uncertain
terms that “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created
all things that they might exist, and the generative forces [creatures] of the world are wholesome, and
there is no destructive poison in them; and the dominion of Hades is not on earth” (Wis 1:13–14).
When God created man, besides investing him with the supernatural gifts of grace, he gave him other
privileges. These are known as the preternatural gifts since they perfected human nature within its
own order, yet they were not strictly demanded by nature itself. One of these gifts was the bodily
immortality that Adam was meant to pass on, with life itself, to his own descendants. Even though
man possessed a mortal nature, God destined him not to die. Material beings, like the human body,
are naturally corruptible. Adam and Eve, therefore, would have been naturally mortal before original
sin had God not granted them immortality as an additional and gratuitous privilege. After sin, Adam
lost the preternatural gift of immortality, together with all the other gratuitous gifts and privileges,
both supernatural and preternatural. This loss affects his descendants as well. From then on, man had
to die as a consequence of nature, since the body is naturally corruptible, and also as a penalty, part
of the punishment involving the loss of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts or privileges
enjoyed by our first parents.
105 Letter Recentiores Episcoporum Synodi, AAS 71 [1979]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church takes up this subject
matter in nos. 1006-1019.
What followed from the soul’s rebelling against God was the rebellion and disorder of the appetites
(fomes peccati) and the entry of death, the “wages of sin” (Rom 6:23), into a world that had been
made for life. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” (cf. Wis
1:13; 2:23–24; Rom 5:21; 6:23; Jas 1:15),8 is thus the last enemy of man, which must be overcome
(cf. 1 Cor 15:16). The penal character of death is a dogma of faith that is solemnly defined by the
Church when she condemned the following proposition: “Adam, the first man, was created mortal so
that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died a bodily death, that is, he would have departed
from the body, not as a punishment for sin, but by the necessity of his nature.”
8.2.3 The Universality of Death
Death is universal; all men die, since they are descendants of Adam and Eve and, therefore, heirs of
original sin. This universality is seen in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore as sin came into the world
through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom
5:12; cf. Gn 2:17; Wis 2:13–14; 1 Cor 15:22). The Council of Trent authoritatively interpreted the
passages of Hebrews 2:14 and Romans 5:12, teaching that death is one of the consequences of original
sin for the whole of mankind.
The universal law of death is a consequence of original sin which does not have to be applied to the
Blessed Virgin, who was conceived immaculate. The Church has always made an exception of Mary
in the Magisterium regarding the consequences of original sin. Munificentissimus Deus, which
defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, purposely left the question of her
death unsolved. It affirms only that she was “immune to the corruption of the sepulcher,” but it does
not say whether she died or not. Some theologians focus on her Immaculate Conception. Since the
Blessed Virgin had no original sin and was full of grace from the moment she was conceived, she did
not have to die. Others stress that, because of her singular union with Christ, she has an exceptional
role in the work of Redemption; she is often called co-redemptrix. That close union would call for
her to share also in Christ’s painful experience of death.
Moreover, St. Paul says that “we shall not all sleep” (1 Cor 15:51), and makes reference to some
“who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord” (1 Thes 4:15). These expressions may mean
that those who are alive at the end of time will not die. Among Bible scholars and theologians,
however, “it is held with greater probability and more commonly that all those who are alive at the
coming of our Lord, will die and rise again shortly after.… If, however, it be true … that they will
never die the debt of death is nonetheless in them, and … the punishment of death will be remitted
by God, since he can also forgive the punishment due for actual sins.”106
Seen as a consequence of original sin, death itself becomes meaningful. This eventually explains the
baffling problem of the existence of evil in the world. Catholic faith teaches that God is not distant
and arbitrary, but a God who comes down to earth to partake of the destiny of man/woman even death
in order to redeem him. Christ transformed death. Jesus, the Son of God, also suffered death proper
to human condition. In spite of being deeply distressed and troubled, Jesus took death upon himself
as an act of total and free submission to the will of the Father. Jesus’ obedience transformed the curse
of death into a blessing (cf. Rom 5:19–21).
106 ST, II-II, q. 81, a. 3 ad 1.
Christian death has a positive dimension. “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).
“The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him” (2 Tm 2:11). In Baptism,
a Christian “dies with Christ” sacramentally, to live a new life. If he dies in the grace of Christ,
physical death completes his “dying with Christ” and perfects his incorporation into Christ in his
redeeming action. In this light, death acquires a new meaning: For man/woman, to die in Christ is to
participate in the Redemption (cf. Phil 2:7; Col 1:24).14
8.2.4 Death as End of the Time to Gain Merits
Death marks the end of the time to acquire merit; it is the end of the status viatoris, the time of trial.
Right after death, one acquires the definitive state: eternal torment in hell, or eternal bliss in heaven—
immediately or after a period of purification in purgatory. After death, there is no more time to change
one’s mind, improve, or repent. The Profession of Faith proposed by Pope Clement IV to Michael
Paleologus, who accepted it in the Second Council of Lyons (a.d. 1274), affirms: “If those who are
truly penitent die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins … their souls are
cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments [that is, in purgatory].… The souls of
those who have not committed any sin at all … are promptly taken up into heaven. The souls of those
who die in mortal sin … soon go down into hell.”107
Sacred Scripture illustrates this truth in many ways: the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus
(cf. Lk 16:19–31), that of the wise and the foolish virgins (cf. Mt 25:1–13), expressions like “Night
[death] comes, when no one can work [win merits]” (Jn 9:4) or, “So then, as we have opportunity, let
us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:10). This
truth became especially clear on Calvary, when our Lord told the good thief: “Today you will be with
me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43).
After death, “there is no more space for repentance, no time for satisfaction. It is here where we lose
or keep our life, where we gain our eternal salvation through the worship of God and the merit of
faith. No one should feel that his sins or old age block the way back to salvation; as long as we are
still in this world, it is never too late to repent. The doors of God’s pardon are always open, and
entrance is easy for those who search for and come to understand the truth.” This aspect of death
should impress a sense of urgency in our lives. We have only a limited time to accomplish our lives;
thus, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before … the dust returns to the earth
as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl 12:1–7). The Church encourages us to
prepare ourselves for the hour of our death, to ask the Mother of God to intercede for us “at the hour
of our death,” and to entrust ourselves to St. Joseph, the patron of a good death. When the soul leaves
the body, it permanently adheres to the object that is chosen as its last end at the moment of death. It
cannot, and will not, change its choice any more. When death comes, the will becomes irrevocably
fixed in good or in evil, in a state of conversion to God or rejection of him. Up to that very moment,
one can choose between salvation or condemnation, though, ordinarily, a person’s final hour will be
a consequence of what his life has been. Sacred Scripture affirms in many places that, after having
passed the frontiers of this life, no one can turn back (cf. Eccl 11:3; Mt 25:46; Lk 16:26; Gal 6:10; Jn
9:4). The Fathers of the Church also unanimously affirm this. There is a theological explanation for
this. The separated soul is a pure spirit; it no longer depends on the fickleness of the imagination and
107 DS 856–858.
the senses. Consequently, it adheres to its chosen end in an unchangeable manner. Theologians
unanimously acknowledge that the ultimate reason why death ends the time of trial is that God himself
has established it thus. His providence requires humankind to merit their last end. Neither the body
alone nor the separated soul are meant to give moral actions a transcendent value; it is the whole
human nature body and soul that performs meritorious actions. Consequently, it is reasonable for the
time of trial during which merit and sin are possible to end when the body and the soul separate from
each other.
Some people speak about reincarnation, meaning that, after death, the soul can inform a new body,
starting a new existence on earth. This hypothesis is typical of non-Christian cultures. It openly
contradicts the doctrine of faith, which teaches that the soul, being the substantial form of the body,
can be the substantial form of only one subject. This means that each person has his own soul, which
does not exist prior to its informing the body. Reincarnation or metempsychosis is an erroneous
doctrine, since it maintains that a soul can successively animate several bodies. It also contradicts
right reason, which shows the union between body and soul to be verifiable through experience. That
unity cannot be founded on either body or soul alone, for this would imply that the body and the soul-
both complete substances in themselves-are joined accidentally, and not substantially.
8.2.5 The Condition of the Separated Soul
Christians must firmly hold the two following essential points: On the one hand, they must believe in
the fundamental continuity-thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit-between our present life in Christ
and the future life; on the other hand, they must be clearly aware of the radical break between the
present life and the future one, due to the fact that the economy of faith will be replaced by the
economy of fullness of life. Our imagination may be incapable of reaching these heights, but our heart
does so instinctively and completely.
Within the limits of prudence, we are in a position to make some statements about the condition of
the separated soul, since we know its nature and operations. Since the soul is the substantial form of
the body, their relationship can be reduced to the composition of act and potency. No longer limited
by a potency (the body), the separated soul is, in a sense, in a more perfect condition. However, since
the soul is meant to inform the body through which it had acted, in this sense it is incomplete and less
perfect than it was before. Being a spirit, the separated soul performs the operations that are proper
to spirits, since operations follow being. Obviously, it cannot perform sensitive operations because it
is separated from the body and its senses. Nevertheless, it keeps all the knowledge acquired in life
and can establish relationships, combinations, and comparisons between known things. It knows
itself, and can reflect on or contemplate its own spiritual essence, for this essence is in itself
intelligible and adequate to the soul’s knowledge. In the same way, it knows other separated souls
and the angels, though, in the latter case, the knowledge is imperfect, because the angel’s nature far
exceeds human intelligence.
On the other hand, the soul is capable of receiving intelligible species that are directly infused by
God. These infused species allow the soul to acquire a knowledge that surpasses that attainable
through the senses. This is especially true of the knowledge of God that is acquired with the help of
the lumen gloriae.
The other operation that is proper to the spiritual nature is volition. Here, we have to distinguish
between love for the end and love for the means. We have already seen that the separated soul adheres
irrevocably to the object that is chosen as its last end at the moment of death; no further choice is
possible. With respect to the means, however, the separated soul is still able to choose, but only
between those means that lead to the last end that it has adhered to.
Lastly, the soul continues to be a subject of relations. Thus, it can establish relations with God, with
the angels, and with the other separated souls. With the help of God or of the angels, it can also get
in touch with those who are still living on earth, but always in accordance with the general laws of
providence.
8.3 Particular Judgement
The eternal fate of each person is determined immediately after death. This is a truth of faith, and has
been repeatedly taught by the Magisterium of the Church.
8.3.1 Existence of the Particular Judgment
The New Testament speaks of the judgment mainly from the perspective of a final meeting with
Christ in his second coming. But we also find in many places of the Sacred Scripture references to
the retribution immediately after each one’s death as a consequence of one’s faith and deeds. Thus,
we find the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:22ff), and the promise made by
Christ to the good thief from the cross (cf. Lk 23:43) that he will immediately be with him in paradise.
Other texts of the New Testament describe the last destiny of the soul (cf. Mt 16:26; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil
1:23; Heb 9:27; 12:23), which may be different for one or the other.
Thus, we know with the certainty of faith that each human, after dying, receives in his/her immortal
soul his/her eternal retribution in a particular judgment. He/she immediately refers his/her life to
Christ, going either through a period of purification, or directly to his definitive state in heaven, or to
eternal condemnation. This passage to the definitive state would not be possible without a previous
judgment, where each person’s fate is clearly and summarily decided before the judgment seat of
Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. The
epistle to the Hebrews says that it is appointed for human to die once and after that, the judgment
comes (cf. Heb 9:27). The existence of the particular judgment is a truth of faith, because it is directly
related to the explicit affirmations of the Magisterium of the Church about immediate retribution after
death for good or bad deeds. Theologians, or at least a great majority of them, hold it as an implicitly
defined truth of divine faith.
Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council says:
We make it our aim, then, to please the Lord in all things (cf. 2 Cor 5:9) and we put on the armor of God
that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day (cf. Eph 6:11–13).
Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch
constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9:27), we may merit
to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed (cf. Mt 25:31–46) and not,
like the wicked and slothful servants (cf. Mt 25:26), be ordered to depart into the eternal fire (cf. Mt
25:41), into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 22:13; 25:30).108
Being considered worthy to enter the wedding feast, or being counted among the elect as well as being
ordered out to eternal fire and exterior darkness implies a reckoning or rating: a judgment. This
sentence has to be passed before the definitive Kingdom of God, which will come only after the final
judgment. The same document suggests this immediately afterwards:
Before we reign with Christ in glory we must all appear “before the judgment of Christ, so that each one
may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10), and at the end of the
world “they will come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have
done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:29; cf. Mt 25:46).109
This document also describes the relation between the celestial Church and the pilgrim Church until
the second coming of our Lord: “Some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and
are being purified, while still others are in glory.” These three situations coexist now: those living
now in this mortal life, the deceased who still undergo a process of purification, and those who already
enjoy heavenly glory. The last two current states necessarily imply having already appeared before
Christ’s tribunal. Those who are still on earth have not yet crossed the threshold of death, while those
condemned are not mentioned because they are outside the communion of the Church.
This truth is also found in the teachings of the apostolic Fathers like St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius
of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. The writings of later Fathers are more concerned with the
controversy brought up by the Millenarians and the Gnostics, which is beyond the scope of our
subject matter. But from the fourth century on, the Fathers clearly attest to the existence of the
particular judgment.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the particular judgment takes place when each of
us departs this life, for then, one is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that
one has ever done, spoken, or thought during life shall be subjected to the most strict scrutiny.
St. Thomas explains many times the fittingness and existence of the particular judgment. He says that
each man/woman is both an individual person and a member of the human race. Thus, he/she has to
submit to a double judgment: a private and particular judgment as an individual, and a general and
universal one as a member of the human race. Besides, since human cannot earn merit after death,
there is no reason for him to be judged and rewarded only at the end of the world. And since he is
immediately requited, there must be a particular judgment. Moreover, the soul, if not immediately
judged, would be uncertain of its fate until the day of the final judgment. That delay would be a
reward for the damned and a punishment for the blessed. Regarding the universal judgment, St.
Thomas affirms that “there is still another judgment of God in which everyone will receive after death
the deserved requital … since it is not likely that such separation [between the blessed and the
damned] would happen without a divine judgment or that this judgment would not be within the
sovereignty of Christ.”110
108 LG., 48. 109 Ibid. 110 St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, 242.
8.3.2 The Nature of the Particular Judgment
Basically, the particular judgment consists in the communication of the divine sentence to the
separated soul. Due to its spiritual nature, the soul understands it through a most simple and
instantaneous act of the intellect. The particular judgment cannot be conceived of as a litigation about
one’s good or evil acts, or about the standing of the separated soul with regard to its faults and
responsibilities.
It is also wrong to picture the particular judgment as some kind of self-trial: an intellectual operation
by which the soul itself acknowledges its faults, and accepts the corresponding sanctions. We should
not forget that pride resides in the soul, making it difficult for the separated soul to accept its own
faults. The particular judgment is rather an act by which God makes the soul see with all clarity. God
communicates this act to the soul, which cannot dispute it. By this act, the soul gets to understand in
some way its state of either union with God or hideous sin, the mysterium iniquitatis. It is a light that
comes from God and will lead either to the soul’s union with God immediately or through purgatory
or to its definitive damnation.
The passage of 2 Corinthians 5:10 clearly shows that the sentence will come from outside and will be
received by the person. Therefore, it will be a verdict issued by God, not the result of a court litigation,
and even less of a self-trial.
St. Thomas asserts that “judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity; still by special
appropriation such power is attributed to the Son.” He adds that “judgments of this kind were
exercised by Christ before his Incarnation, inasmuch as he is the Word of God; and the soul united
with him personally became a partaker of his power by the Incarnation.” This enables us to understand
when Sacred Scripture says that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (cf.
Jn 15:22, 27), a power which Christ has inasmuch as he is the Son of Man. Thus, the sentence is
immediately and directly communicated to the soul by divine power, but this does not necessarily
imply the vision of God.
8.3.3 Immediate Execution of the Sentence
Pope Benedict XII’s constitution Benedictus Deus repeatedly affirms and defines that the
punishments of the damned, the reward of the blessed, and the time of purgation of those who die
without mortal sin but with light faults take place “soon [mox] after death.”111
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) had earlier defined that the souls of the just immediately enter
heaven. The then Pope John XXII, before being elected, had been involved in a controversy about
the beatific vision. Later on, as Pope, he did not take part in it anymore. In 1336, Benedict XII
definitively resolved the question with Benedictus Deus. There, the new pope clarified once and for
all that the execution of the sentence is immediate.
St. Thomas gives several arguments in support of the Catholic faith. Since the separated soul can
receive both punishment and reward, there is no reason to defer either of them. Moreover, merit and
111 Const. Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan. 1336: DS 1000-1002.
punishment redound to the body only through the soul, since only voluntary actions gain merit. Thus,
there is no need to wait for the resurrection of the body before executing the sentence. It even seems
more fitting that the souls be rewarded or punished before the bodies. The reunion of the body and
the soul in the resurrection does not add anything to essential bliss which consists in the beatific
vision since the beatific vision corresponds to the soul. The same can be said of essential punishment.
Hence, the body is not necessary in either case, except for accidental integrity. Thus, unless the soul
goes to purgatory first, reward or punishment are received right after death.
8.4 Purgatory
The Church has expressly acknowledged the existence of purgatory as a truth that is revealed in
Sacred Scripture and defined by the Magisterium.112 Moreover, she has always lived in accordance
with this truth, teaching the need and efficacy of suffrages for the faithful departed.
8.4.1 Existence of Purgatory
Before entering heaven, every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of
the soul corrected. Purification must be complete. The Church calls purgatory the final purification
of the souls of those who, having died in grace, have not fully paid the temporal punishment for their
pardoned mortal sins or their venial sins. This purification is completely different from the
punishment of the damned. The term purgatory does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.
The separated souls, being spirits, do not properly occupy a place. In common language, however,
purgatory is understood as a place for these souls. The existence of purgatory has been clearly
affirmed by the solemn Magisterium. Pope Innocent IV teaches that, in purgatory, “sins are truly
purified by that temporal fire - not grievous or capital sins that have not first been remitted by penance,
but small and slight sins that remain a burden after death.” The Profession of Faith of Michael
Paleologus, presented to the Second Council of Lyons (1274), mentions “purgatorial … punishments”
for those who have not satisfied the punishment of their sins. The constitution Benedictus Deus
reminds us that souls can enter heaven only “after they have been purified after death.” Clement VI,
in his letter Super Quibusdam (1351), affirms that “Purgatory … is the destination of the souls of
those who die in grace, but have not yet done satisfaction for their sins by a complete penance.”
Similarly, the bull Laetentur Coeli of the Council of Florence (1439) points out again the necessity
of purification after death. In his bull Exsurge Domine (1520), Leo X condemns Luther’s denial of
purgatory. Canon 30 of the Council of Trent’s decree De Iustificatione (1574) states that the repented
sinner who has not yet paid the debt of temporal punishment must go to purgatory “before the gate
of the Kingdom of Heaven can be opened” for him.
The Magisterium’s affirmation that purgatory exists rests on Sacred Scripture, both the Old and New
Testaments. There is no need for the Scriptures to use the word purgatory; it is enough that the idea
of purgatory be sufficiently and clearly described in the Scriptures and in Sacred Tradition. The Old
Testament praises Judas Maccabee for having offered suffrages for the dead (cf. 2 Mac 12:39ff.). It
is obvious that such persons had died without mortal sin, but are still suffering for their sins. Their
situation is neither beatitude nor damnation, since the suffrages would be useless for souls in any of
these states.
112 CCC 1030-1032.
The New Testament is more explicit. Authors usually cite passages such as Matthew 12:31–32, Luke
12:47–48, 1 Peter 1:7, and 2 Timothy 1:16. The most explicit text is 1 Corinthians 3:10–15, where
two “fires” are mentioned: one “fire” to examine the good or evil of men’s deeds, and the other to
purify some before they are saved. The first “fire” clearly refers to the particular judgment, the latter
to purgatory.
Sacred Tradition offers countless witnesses to the need of purification for some after death. Even
more eloquent is the testimony of the funeral liturgy particularly of the Eucharistic sacrifice that is
offered for the deceased and of the Christians’ frequent prayers for the faithful departed.
The weight of these testimonies both of the Fathers and of the very life of the Church ever since the
beginning made Calvin complain that “this custom of praying for the dead was introduced in the
Church thirteen hundred years ago. All of the ancients were led into error.”113 No comment is needed:
The infallible Church has upheld the truth.
St. Thomas tackles the matter from different angles. First, forgiven mortal sins have been pardoned
as regards the guilt, but not necessarily as regards the totality of the temporal punishment. Justice
demands a proportionate punishment to repair the order that is damaged by sin. Thus, it is reasonable
that those who have not fully paid the debt due to sin be purified after death by undergoing a
punishment. Second, the soul cannot be elevated to the beatific vision if it is not totally purified. Since
such purification is not always accomplished in this life, it is logical that it should take place after
death and before entering heaven. St. Thomas is quite explicit: “Those who deny purgatory speak
against the justice of God.… Such a statement is erroneous and contrary to Faith.”
8.4.2 The Nature of Purgatory
The Church has not said that purgatory is a place; she has pointed out that purgatory is a state, a
process of purification. She has said that purgatorial punishments do exist, but has not specified the
nature or the characteristics of such torments. It is common doctrine among theologians that there is
a distinction between two basic forms of punishment. These are called pain of loss and pain of sense
by analogy with those of hell.
St. Thomas categorically affirms that the pain of loss is a delay in the vision of God. Others speak
about the punishment of postponement of glory, which is just the same. The basic nature of this pain
seems to consist in a certain delay in entering heaven. We should stress that the expression “pain of
loss” is used here in an analogical and improper sense, very different from hell’s pain of loss the
complete and definitive separation from God, as we will see later on.
The souls in purgatory are not farther from God than we are on earth. Unlike us, they are completely
sure of beholding God in the future. What constitutes their punishment is the delay in seeing him.
Therefore, in purgatory, there is joy and pain at the same time. There is pain because the souls that
are retained there long for the vision of God and are prevented from reaching it. Their desire to be
with the Lord is no longer weakened by material occupations and realities. The souls of purgatory are
not interested in created goods any more, but only in the Lord of all creation, the only good that is
113 John Calvin, Inst. Christ., 1.3.5.10.
capable of satisfying them. Besides, their desire to possess God is extremely intense, because they
know that they are destined to eternal happiness. But they cannot enjoy God until they totally expiate
their faults and the punishment of their sins. They also know perfectly that the blame is exclusively
theirs. They could have entered heaven earlier if, while still on earth, they had avoided venial sin,
striven to do the will of God, and accepted with joy the trials and sufferings of life, which are a
preparation for heaven.
The more saintly a soul is, the greater its suffering, since it longs more intensely for the beatific vision.
But that greater severity of pain is offset by a more perfect abandonment to the divine will and a fuller
surrender to the execution of the divine justice.
However, there is also joy in purgatory, because the souls that are retained there know that they are
destined for eternal happiness in paradise. They are consoled by the angels. They are helped by the
suffrages of the Church and the prayers of the Virgin and the saints. Purgatory is not a mollified hell,
but the antechamber of heaven.
The pain of sense, on the other hand, is referred to in several documents of the Magisterium as fire.
This expression suggests a purifying form of suffering, different from the pain of loss. Thus, the letter
Super Quibusdam of Clement VI speaks about the souls of purgatory as being tormented temporarily
with fire. The First Council of Lyons mentions a “temporal fire” that purifies the souls of purgatory.
It seems that the Magisterium did not want to mediate in the dispute that had arisen between the Greek
and Latin Fathers about the nature of this fire. The former claimed that it is not easy to understand
how a material fire can harm a spiritual soul.
We can say, however, that purgatory’s pain of sense “will be more severe than anything human can
suffer here in this life.” It seems more probable that it is a real fire as the Latin Fathers and most
theologians think. “This fireworks on the soul not by its own power, but as an instrument of divine
Justice, just as baptismal water produces grace in our souls by virtue of God’s power.… This fire’s
way of operating is mysterious.” According to St. Thomas, “the corporeal fire is enabled as the
instrument of … divine Justice thus to detain a spirit; and thus it has a penal effect on it, by hindering
it from fulfilling its own will, that is by hindering it from acting where it will and as it will.” The soul
suffers this punishment for having taken creatures as its end instead of directing everything to the
glory of God.
8.4.3 Properties of the Pains of Purgatory
The purpose of the punishments in purgatory is to cleanse the soul so that it can reach the total purity
that is required to enjoy the beatific vision. The pains of purgatory represent, therefore, the payment
of the debt of temporal punishments that is due to both venial and already forgiven mortal sins.
Properly speaking, this atonement does not have any satisfactory value, which would require a free
and spontaneous offering of the punishment. Neither does it have meritorious value, since the time
for merit will have ended with death. Theologians usually describe these pains as satispassion: The
souls gladly accept the purifying punishment, but do not seek the pain; they just passively endure it.
We can say that they want to be freed from it as soon as possible.
Regarding the intensity of the pains, we should keep in mind that the souls in purgatory ardently want
to see God. The suffering caused by the delay is proportional to the strength of the desire. The pains
are therefore unequal. Not all souls in purgatory suffer in the same degree, neither in duration nor in
severity of the pains. “Severity of punishment corresponds properly speaking to the amount of guilt:
whereas the length corresponds to the firmness with which sin has taken root in its subject. Hence it
may happen that one may be delayed longer who is tormented less, and vice versa.” And thus, a soul
that is stained with grave sins in moments of weakness, after suffering with great intensity, may leave
purgatory ahead of another soul that, without having seriously offended God, lived in tepidity,
despising the calls of grace to a life of greater self-surrender, and not giving importance to venial sins.
When we use the terms duration or temporal in connection with the pains of purgatory, we should
not forget that, for the separated souls, time or duration is not the same as what we experience here
on earth. These terms are applied to them by analogy.
But it is worth recalling that purgatory is not a sad “place”; it is rather the opposite, in spite of the
pains. Although the souls in purgatory suffer incomparably more pain than one can experience on
earth, their joys and consolations are beyond description. They are certain of salvation, totally
identified with God’s will, happy to be purified, constantly comforted as they approach the end of
their punishment, and they enjoy the special spiritual help of the Blessed Virgin and the angels.
Furthermore, the pains of purgatory can be reduced through the suffrages that we offer. We have
already mentioned, as a proof of the Church’s doctrine on purgatory, the existence since time
immemorial of the liturgy for the dead. The Church has insistently praised and defended it. Actually,
a great part of the Magisterium documents that are cited here were issued, in the course of the
centuries, as a defense of suffrages for the dead. We can mention the Second Council of Lyons, the
Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina of
Pope Paul VI.114
Sacred Tradition has always upheld this teaching, as the Fathers and the life of the Church attest. The
latter offers many testimonies in the liturgy, funeral inscriptions, and monuments. This doctrine has
always been taught together with the dogma of the communion of saints.
Prayers for the dead have always been considered as a pious duty and as a work of mercy. It is a
requirement of charity, since we have to wish the good of others. It is an obligation of piety toward
members of the same natural or supernatural family. And it is also an obligation of justice, since some
souls may be detained in purgatory partly through our fault because of our sins of commission or
omission.
Among the different ways of helping the souls of purgatory, the most important is the sacrifice of the
Mass. On All Soul’s Day, all the priests of the Church offer Mass for the souls in purgatory. On many
other occasions, the Mass may be applied for that intention as well. The application of indulgences
for the dead is a common practice, as well as giving alms in their memory, or offering up sacrifices
and penance on their behalf.
114 Profession of Faith of Michael Paleologus: DS 856; Bull Laetentur Coeli: DS 1304; Council of Trent, sess. 22, Decr.
De Sacrificio Missae, can. 3: DS 1753; AAS 59 (1967), 16-17, respectively
It is also good to remember that, by virtue of the communion of saints, the souls in purgatory can help
us greatly with their intercession. The Church does not invoke them in the liturgy, but the custom of
invoking them privately is widespread in the Church. This Christian practice has never been
forbidden. On the contrary, some prayers asking for their help have even been enriched with
indulgences.
8.5 Hell
8.5.1 Existence of Hell
We cannot be united to God unless we freely choose to love him. We cannot love God if we sin
grievously against him, our neighbor, or our own selves. “He who does not love remains in death.
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding
in him” (1 Jn 3:14–15). To die in mortal sin, without repentance and without seeking refuge in the
compassionate love of God, implies remaining separated from God forever because of our free choice.
Hell is, thus, this state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in
heaven.
The existence of hell is a truth of faith that is clearly and repeatedly found in Sacred Scripture. To
describe this reality, Sacred Scripture uses a symbolic language, which will be progressively
explained. In the Old Testament, the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by
revelation. Moreover, it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, which is described as a
land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21ff; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one
cannot escape (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6), and
other names (cf. Nm 16:30; Ps 48:18; Is 14:15;).
The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ,
by his Resurrection, conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.
Redemption, nevertheless, remains an offer of salvation, which it is up to people to freely accept.
This is why they will all be judged “by what they had done” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New
Testament presents the place that is destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep
and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43).
Jesus also says that he will proclaim the sentence: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire”
(Mt 25:41). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of
eternal suffering, with no possibility of return nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19–31). The
Apocalypse also figuratively portrays in a “lake of fire” (Rv 20:14) those who exclude themselves
from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:15). Whoever continues to be closed
to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the
Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9).
The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the
complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state
of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.
The existence of hell is also a common teaching of the Fathers of the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch
talks of the “inextinguishable fire,” St. Polycarp speaks of the “eternal punishment,” and we also have
the testimonies of St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.
As we shall see later on, the Magisterium of the Church has repeatedly taught the existence of hell
for those who die in mortal sin and the eternal duration of its punishment.
However, there is also a constant tendency to explain away hell, perhaps because it is such a terrible
reality. These teachings contradict the doctrine of the Church and ultimately deny the existence of
hell as a reality. Basically, these errors can be reduced to three:
1. Conditionalism affirms that only the souls that die in justice and sanctity will survive after
death, because those that die in sin will be annihilated (the existence of hell is denied) or else
sent to a “temporal hell” (the nature of hell is denied). Gnostics and all those who deny the
subsistence of the soul after death belong to this line of thought, as well as those who admit a
final resurrection only for the just (there may be a short resurrection for the condemned, but
they will immediately die again after receiving their sentence in the last judgment). This is the
position of Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Adventists.
2. Universalism affirms that all will be saved sooner or later. This is the thought of some
Origenists who describe hell as some sort of “prolonged purgatory”. Also in this group are the
Albigensians, who say that purification is to be carried out through a series of successive
reincarnations, as well as the Anabaptists, some nineteenth century Protestants who were
especially influenced by Schleiermacher, and, in the present century, the Lutheran Karl Barth.
3. Aterminism is Origen’s own doctrine: After the present stage of history will have reached its
end with the final judgment, another age shall begin and everything will start all over again,
following an endless cycle.
With respect to conditionalism, it is enough to recall what was said about death in the introduction
and in the first chapter of this treatise, along with the teachings of the Magisterium there quoted.
Aterminism was condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in a.d. 543, which was later ratified by
Pope Vigilius I. Both tendencies contradict the professions of faith, like the Quicumque Symbol and
Damasus’s Formula of Faith.
The solemn Magisterium of the Church teaches that the souls of those who leave this world in mortal
sin go to hell, to suffer forever in the inextinguishable fire. Contrary to the position of the
Universalists, neither revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition nor the Magisterium of the Church
teach that hell exists simply for “pedagogical” purposes, like a bogeyman for mischievous children.
Both teach that hell is an existing reality. Certainly, we do not know how many are condemned, but
Scripture’s insistence on the reality of hell and the fact that we continuously risk eternal damnation
help us understand that hell is an actual reality. The Church has never said (and will never say) who
or how many are in hell. But she is in a position to declare as dogma the reality of hell and stress its
importance for human’s eternal destiny.
Theology explains the existence of hell in the light of God’s sanctity and justice. Hell’s existence is
known only through faith, but this does not mean that the need of a reward or punishment for our
actions in this life defies reason. Actually, since this requital is not carried out on earth, it seems
logical to expect it after death. Taking into account the nature of sin, its consequences (breaking our
friendship with God, the resulting enmity with him, subjection to the devil) and the magnitude of the
offense in the light of God’s infinite dignity, it is easy to understand the existence of a punishment
that is in proportion to the offense that was committed. These arguments show the fittingness of hell.
That is as far as theology can go, since hell is a supernatural mystery that is known only through
revelation.
8.5.2 The Nature of Hell
God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But human, called to respond to him freely, can
unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for
ever from joyful communion with God. This is precisely the content of the Christian doctrine on
eternal damnation or hell. Hell is not a punishment that is imposed externally by God but a
development of premises that are already set by people in this life. It is the state of those who
definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life. “Eternal damnation,”
therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative, because, in his merciful love, he can desire only the
salvation of the beings that he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love.
Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person
and confirmed with death, which seals his choice forever. God’s judgment ratifies this state.
The nature of hell is described in revelation and in the above-quoted declarations of the Magisterium.
The words of our Lord in the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal
fire” (Mt 25:41), give us a glimpse of hell, which is closely related to the mystery of sin.
By mortal sin, we exclude God from our life. It brings about a breach between man and God, and is
essentially an act of disobedience to God. In the same manner, hell is the total and definitive
separation of the creature from its Creator, of the son from his Father, of man from his God and Lord.
This is the meaning of the words “Depart from me, you cursed,” which the Church identifies with the
pain of loss.
Moreover, mortal sin is also an act in which one exchanges “the glory of the immortal God for images
resembling mortal man” (Rom 1:23), worshipping and serving “the creature rather than the Creator”
(Rom 1:25). This corresponds in hell to the pain of sense, referred to in the Gospel as fire.
The Magisterium affirms that this state of suffering will last forever. This is explicitly taught in the
above words of Christ, when he speaks of the eternal fire.
8.5.3 The Pains of Hell
Hell, therefore, involves a twofold punishment: the pain of loss and the pain of sense. The pain of
loss is the eternal privation of the vision or union with God, in which precisely lies our supreme bliss
and happiness. It is doubtless the greatest and most terrible of all pains, both from the objective and
the subjective point of view.
God does not predestine anyone to go to hell. In order for anyone to go to hell, there must be a
voluntary aversion to God (a mortal sin), and a persistence in sin until the end on one’s life. Human
has been created by God and elevated to the supernatural order, being thus ordained to an end beyond
his nature. Created by and ordained to the love of God, human longs for union with God as their
Creator and end, even without knowing or admitting it. The privation of God is then the most terrible
situation in which human as a creature can find themselves, since it means existing without any reason
or purpose: an absolute lack of meaning and, therefore, a state of absolute unhappiness.
Aside from that, human has been redeemed by Christ and, being a mere creature, has been made a
child of God. The separation that goes with the pain of loss implies losing the love of God, which is
the supreme vocation of the Christian. As we have seen, sin is basically aversio a Deo, a rupture of
the friendship and communion with God due to human’s fault. Through mortal sin, human ceases to
be a child of God and becomes an enemy of his Creator and Redeemer. The punishment of this aspect
of sin is the pain of loss, which consists in the eternal privation of the beatific vision. Human is placed
in a paradoxical situation with no escape: being a creature, but does not recognize the Creator. This
is a permanent state of conflict with no hope of solution. Humans are called to love the Supreme
Good, but find themselves forever incapable of accomplishing their vocation and consummating
happiness. Hell brings to completion the breaking away from the love of God, to which human is
called as a creature and, above all, as a child of God.
The pain of loss corresponds to what is most terrible in mortal sin: the formal opposition to God
himself. It is the punishment for being at enmity with one’s Creator. St. Thomas assuredly affirms
that “mortal sins deserve … the privation of seeing God, to which no other punishment is
comparable.” The pain of loss brings with it the suffering that is caused by the obstinacy of the will
in its hostility to God, without any hope of rectification. This implies an inner conflict in the subject
who experiences it.
The punishment of the damned will be increased, firstly, by their separation from God
and from all good. This is the pain of loss, which corresponds to the aversion, and is a
greater punishment than that of sense.
Secondly, the damned shall suffer from remorse of conscience.
Nevertheless, their repentance and groaning will be of no avail, because it rises not
from hatred of evil, but from fear and the enormity of their punishments.
Fourthly, there is the despair of their salvation. If some hope of delivery from their
punishment would be given them, their punishment would be somewhat lessened; but
since all hope is withdrawn from them, their sufferings are most intense.
Moreover, the pain of loss deprives of all the rewards that accompany the beatific vision, like the
glorious body, brightness, and impassibility. The pain of loss is the proper and essential punishment
of hell, since it corresponds to the formal breach of the friendship with God in mortal sin.
Aside from the pain of loss, there is the pain of sense. It torments the souls of the condemned from
the moment of death, and will torment their bodies as well after the final resurrection. This
punishment corresponds to the other aspect of mortal sin: a disorderly attachment to creatures
(conversio ad creaturas).
Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium point out that, aside from the privation of God (pain
of loss), the damned suffer punishments usually called “fire.” The majority of the Fathers and Doctors,
as well as almost all of the theologians, understand this fire to be a real fire. We cannot disregard the
importance that is given to this punishment by revelation, the Magisterium, and theology. St. Thomas,
for example, emphasizes on the “great pain of sense. It is the fire of hell, which tortures the soul and
the body; and this, as the Saints tell us, is the sharpest of all punishments. They shall be ever dying,
and yet never die; hence it is called eternal death, for as dying is the bitterest of pains, such will be
the lot of those in hell.”
Aside from hellfire, the pain of sense includes several other torments:
• The very condition (or state) that hell is, where only horror, calamity, and misery are to be
found
• The company of reprobates and devils, among whom only hatred reigns
• The torment of the internal and external senses
• The eternal remorse of conscience due to the corruption of sin, along with the despair, hatred,
and anger that it will produce in the soul
And yet the pain of sense is a lesser punishment than the pain of loss, which involves a greater evil:
the eternal privation of the friendship of God. In spite of this state of enmity with God and all its bitter
consequences, the damned will not repent.
8.5.4 Properties of the Pains of Hell: Eternity and Inequality
The main property of the pains of hell is eternity. This eternity is not the divine attribute, but a duration
that cannot and will not end. We can just say that the pains of hell will last forever. The eternity of
the punishments in hell is expressly revealed in Sacred Scripture. It has been solemnly defined in the
above-mentioned documents of the Magisterium. Since mortal sin goes against love itself, which is
God, it is understandable that the infinite gravity of the offense demands a proportionate punishment.
And since the punishment cannot have an infinite intensity, it should logically be infinite in duration,
that is, eternal. The punishments of hell are also of unequal intensity, depending on the importance
and number of the mortal sins committed in life. Subjectively, the pain of loss will be unequal: some
will feel it more than others, depending on the gravity and number of their sins. Objectively, however,
the definitive and complete separation from God will be the same for all. Thus, the inequality of the
punishments at least objectively considered applies mainly to the pain of sense. In this case, the
sufferings will be objectively different, in proportion always to the gravity and number of sins.
Consequently, some will suffer more than others.
The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church on hell are a call for human to
use the freedom with a sense of responsibility. At the same time, these affirmations are an urgent
appeal to conversion. However, the thought of hell and even less the improper use of biblical images
must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the
proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God, who makes us cry
“Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).
8.6 Heaven
When the form of this world has passed away, those who have welcomed God into their lives and
have sincerely opened themselves to his love at least at the moment of death will enjoy fullness of
communion with God, which is the goal of human life. Generally speaking, the teachings of Sacred
Scripture and Sacred Tradition refer to retribution, that is, a reward or a punishment according to
each person’s deeds. Therefore, practically every time hell appears in revelation, heaven is mentioned
as well.
8.6.1 Existence of Heaven
The Creed of the People of God says: “We believe that the multitude of souls gathered round Jesus
and Mary in Paradise forms the Heavenly Church. There they enjoy eternal joy, seeing God as he is.
There also, in different degrees and ways, they share with the holy angels in that exercise of divine
power which belongs to Christ in his glory when they intercede for us and come to the aid of our
weakness in brotherly care.”115
The existence of heaven is a dogma of faith: “The souls of those who have not committed any sin at
all after they received holy Baptism, and the souls of those who have committed sin, but have been
cleansed, either while they were in the body or afterwards … are promptly taken up into heaven.”
The Old Testament alludes to heaven in different ways (cf. Is 60:1; Wis3:1; Dn 7:27), but the New
Testament is much more explicit and insistent.
Our Lord affirms in the Gospel that the angels in heaven continuously see the face of God, and that
it is the reward of the clean of heart and those who are found with the nuptial dress, the state of grace.
Heaven is compared to a banquet where the desire for happiness is satisfied. But one has to become
like a child, fight strenuously to attain it, follow the narrow path, and comply with the will of the
Heavenly Father (cf. Mt 7:13–14, 21; 11:12; 18:1–4, 10; 22:11–12; Lk 13:29; 14:15). Another set of
texts can be gathered from the teachings of the apostles (cf. 1 Cor 2:9; 13:12; 1 Jn 3:2; Rv 21:3).
Heaven is one of the fundamental teachings of the Gospel, for this is the “Good News” of our
salvation: the real possibility of one day being united to God, and sharing his eternal bliss.
Theology explains the existence of heaven in the same way as that of hell. It is fitting to the infinite
justice and sanctity of the love of God that the just those who die in friendship with God receive a
reward.
8.6.2 The Nature of Heaven
Metaphorically speaking, heaven is understood in Sacred Scripture as the dwelling place of God, who
is thus distinguished from human beings (cf. Ps 104:2ff; 115:16; Is 66:1). He sees and judges from
the heights of heaven (cf. Ps 113:4–9) and comes down when he is called upon (cf. Ps 18:9, 10;
144:5). However, the biblical metaphor makes it clear that God does not identify himself with heaven,
115 Paul VI, Creed of the People of God, 29; cf. 1 Jn 3:2 and Const. Benedictus Deus: DS 1000; LG, no. 49.
nor can he be contained within it (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27). This is true, even though, in some passages of the
first book of Maccabees, “Heaven” is simply one of God’s names (1 Mc 3:18, 19, 50, 60; 4:24, 55).
The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling place of the living God is joined with that of
the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts
of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). Thus, heaven becomes an image of life in God. In
this sense, Jesus speaks of a reward in heaven (cf. Mt 5:12) and urges people to “lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven” (Mt 6:20; cf. 19:21).
The New Testament amplifies the idea of heaven in relation to the mystery of Christ. Since believers
are loved in a special way by the Father, they are raised with Christ and made citizens of heaven. The
fatherhood of God, who is rich in mercy, is experienced by creatures through the love of God’s
crucified and risen Son, who sits in heaven on the right hand of the Father as Lord. After the course
of our earthly life, participation in complete intimacy with the Father thus comes through our insertion
into Christ’s paschal mystery. St. Paul emphasizes our meeting with Christ in heaven at the end of
time with a vivid spatial image: “Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore,
comfort one another with these words” (1 Thes 4:17–18).
In the context of revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness” in which we hope to find
ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship
with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father, which takes place in the risen Christ through
the communion of the Holy Spirit.
The happiness of eternal life is, as defined by the Fathers, an exemption from all evil, and an
enjoyment of all good. Heaven consists in the perfect and total possession of the good, without any
mixture of evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that heaven is the ultimate end and
the accomplishment of the most profound aspirations of human, the supreme and definitive state of
bliss. The greatest happiness in heaven, its proper object, “consists in the vision of God, and the
enjoyment of the beauty of God, who is the source and principle of all goodness and perfection.” Our
Lord himself announced it when he said, “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:3).
The Magisterium has described the encounter with God in heaven as an “intuitive and even face-to-
face vision, without interposition of any creature in the function of object seen; rather the divine
essence immediately manifests itself to them plainly, clearly, openly.” The vision of God that the
angels and saints enjoy in heaven is not like the knowledge of God that we have on earth, even when
it is revealed knowledge. St. Paul exclaims, “Now we see in a mirror dimly; but then face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood” (1 Cor 13:12).
8.6.3 The Nature of the Direct Vision of God
The Catechism teaches that, because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is unless he
reveals his mystery to man’s direct contemplation, and gives man the capacity to contemplate him.116
116 CCC, 1028.
The reason is that we know and understand things through representations of reality that are formed
in our intellect. But it is impossible to extract from reality any representation of the essence of God.
“It is impossible that any image drawn from created things should be equally pure and spiritual with
God, no resemblance can enable us perfectly to comprehend the Divine Essence.… The only means
… of arriving at a knowledge of the divine essence is that God unite himself to us.”117 There is direct
vision of God because God unites himself to the intelligence of the blessed in heaven, and from this
union flow the other characteristics of heavenly bliss. In heaven, the souls of the blessed “see clearly
the Triune God himself, just as he is,” and thereby get to know intimately the intra-Trinitarian life.
Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis, affirms that this contemplation of the intimate life
of God makes the saints “rejoice with a happiness very much like to that with which the holy and
undivided Trinity is happy.”118
The beatific vision, and the joy that it engenders, make the soul, in a way, identified with God, “for
those who enjoy God, while they retain their own nature, assume a certain admirable and almost
divine form, so as to seem gods rather than men [sic].” This divinization of the soul and of its powers,
which will also affect the body after the resurrection, does not take away the difference between
Creator and creature God, who is absolutely transcendent, cannot enter into communication with any
creature. This is the great mystery of the beatific vision.
Tradition sheds some light on this mystery with an eloquent teaching. The blessed contemplate God
as he is in himself, but, in him, they also have a most perfect knowledge of creatures (especially those
that are close to them), and this knowledge, too, gives them an immense joy. According to St. Thomas
Aquinas, the saints, who form part of the universe, know in the Word everything that belongs to the
adornment and wholeness of the world. As members of the human community, they know the objects
of their love or interest on earth, and as creatures that are elevated to the order of grace, they clearly
know the truths of the faith that refer to salvation: the incarnation of our Lord, the divine motherhood
of Mary, the Church, grace, and the sacraments.
Nevertheless, the blessed cannot know God with absolute fullness and depth, as he knows himself.
This is due to the immensity of his perfection, goodness, and beauty, which no creature will ever be
able to fully comprehend. Actually, in order to be able to see God face to face, the soul has to be
elevated by the lumen gloriae.
8.6.4 Necessity and Nature of the Lumen Gloriae
The strictly supernatural character of the beatific vision can be understood up to a certain point if we
consider that “all created things are circumscribed within certain limits of perfection, while God is
without limits; and therefore nothing created can reflect his immensity. The only means, then, of
arriving at a knowledge of the divine essence is that God unite himself in some sort to us, and after
an incomprehensible way elevate our minds to a higher degree of perfection, and thus render us
capable of contemplating the beauty of his nature.”119
117 Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.12.8. 118 Council of Florence, Bull Lætentur Coeli: DS 1305. 119 Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.12.8; cf. CCC, 1028.
This supernatural strengthening and elevation of the created intellect enables the spiritual creature to
see God face to face. It is known in theology as the lumen gloriae, or “light of glory.” The necessity
of the lumen gloriae in order to enjoy the beatific vision is a truth of faith. The Magisterium solemnly
defined it in condemning as heretical the following proposition: “Every intellectual nature is in itself
naturally happy, and the soul does not need the light of glory to elevate it to see God and to enjoy
God in blessedness.” The supernatural elevation is totally gratuitous and unmerited. Sacred Scripture
promises it when it talks about the fountain of life and of light (cf. Ps 35:10), and about the light of
the Apocalypse’s city (cf. Rv 21:23ff).
The Church has also defined that “this vision of the divine essence and the enjoyment of it do away
with the acts of faith and hope in those souls, insofar as faith and hope are theological virtues in the
proper sense.” In heaven, God gives himself to the saints as the object of contemplation and joy.
There is no longer any need for the virtues of wayfarers on earth, those that tend by their very nature
to the perfection of charity.
In summary, in our present condition, even with the help of grace, we cannot see the divine essence;
we only get to know about it through revelation. Without the help of God, that is, naturally, the vision
of the divine essence is impossible for our bodily eyes and intellect. This applies to angels as well.
Only with divine assistance is it possible to see God as he is in himself.
In heaven, we will see as we are seen: not through a likeness or an image, but face to face (cf. 1 Cor
13:9ff). For this, God must help the human and angelic intellect in a supernatural and gratuitous way.
This assistance of God, a supernatural and free gift, is the lumen gloriae. It is infused in the created
intellect, preparing it for the intellective union with God and making it capable of the beatific vision.
8.6.5 Beatific Vision and Happiness
The beatific vision the face-to-face vision of God consists in the contemplation of the Trinity and of
all its attributes and properties, which are identified with its essence. This vision does not exhaust the
divine essence, which is incomprehensible, and cannot be completely grasped even with the lumen
gloriae.
The term intellect comes from the Latin intus legere, “to read into.” True knowledge, in a certain
way, is a “going inside” the known object in order to capture its form and its truth. In an ineffable
way, human’s intellect, with the aid of the lumen gloriae, is brought into the divine essence, where it
contemplates the Blessed Trinity and participates more fully in the intimate life of the eternal
processions. The act of the will (love) follows the act of the intellect (knowing). Thus, the direct
vision of God brings about a most intense act of love, fully uniting the soul to God. This union with
God through vision and love produces perfect happiness and an unimaginable satisfaction of the
deepest longings of the soul. And these are even surpassed, because the soul is elevated to an order
far beyond our natural order on earth, even with the help of grace.
The essential happiness consists in the immediate vision of God, and of creatures in God, and in the
infinite joy of their vision. But God’s mercy is so great, and he is so generous, that he has wanted his
chosen ones to find happiness in the legitimate created goods that human seeks.
Aside from the vision of God, “the full and perfect satisfying of every desire,” eternal life consists in
“the happy society of all the blessed, and this society will be especially delightful. Since each one
will possess all good together with the blessed, and they will love one another as themselves, they
will rejoice in the other’s good as their own. It will also happen that, as the pleasure and enjoyment
of one increases, so will it be for all.” Being with Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the
saints is part of the accidental glory, which consists in the “clear and distinct knowledge which each
one [of the blessed] shall have of the singular and exalted dignity of his companions [in glory].”
Meeting those whom we loved while on earth will cause a special joy.
This joy and happiness is completed as other souls enter heaven, as loved ones still on earth progress
in their spiritual life, and as one’s apostolic efforts and sufferings endured in the service of God bear
fruit with the passage of time. It is finally crowned after the universal judgment with the glorification
of one’s own body.
The Catechism teaches that this mystery of blessed communion with God and with all those who are
in Christ surpasses all understanding or representation. “No eye has seen, no ear heard, no the heart
of man (sic) conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).21 “The faithful
should be deeply impressed that the happiness of the saints is full to overflowing of all those pleasures
which can be enjoyed or even desired in this life, whether they regard the powers of the mind or of
the perfection of the body.”
8.6.6 The Glorification of God and the Beatific Vision
The images that are used by Sacred Scripture to refer to heaven, especially in the Book of Revelation
(cf. Rv 4; 5; 6), show the saints to be in continuous adoration of the Blessed Trinity. They praise the
glory of God (cf. Eph 1:6, 12, 14) by being united to him, through their total identification with his
will, which desires the supreme good for us. For this reason, the eternal glorification of God and the
eternal happiness of the saints are like the two sides of a coin. Perpetual praise is given to God, the
Supreme Good that irresistibly attracts the human will, and the saints find the greatest possible
happiness in this praise and recognition of the glory of God.
8.6.7 The Inequality of Blessedness
Although the blessed are all immensely happy contemplating God face-to-face, “some [see God]
more perfectly than others according to their respective merits” gained on earth. In support of this,
the Council of Trent quotes the epistle to the Romans: “For he will render to every man (sic) according
to his works” (Rom 2:6).
St. Thomas explains this question on the basis of the level of grace in each soul:
The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it
by the light of glory, which establishes the intellect in a kind of likeness to God.…Hence the intellect
which has more of the light of glory will see God more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation
of the light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more
desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object
desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more
beatified.120
This inequality in happiness will not sadden those who have received less. First of all, their total
identification with God’s will already bring about their perfect happiness. There is, furthermore, a
reason of fittingness: the perfect charity that unites all souls in heaven leads them to wish the greatest
good and happiness for the others a desire that they will see fully satisfied. The blessed in heaven
continue joyfully fulfilling the will of God with regard to other people and the entire creation. They
reign with Christ. With him, “they shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 22:5; cf. Mt 25:21, 23).
8.6.8 The Eternity of Heaven
The eternity of heaven is a dogma of faith. “The same vision and enjoyment remains continuously
without any interruption or abolition of the vision and enjoyment, and will remain up till the final
judgment and from then on forever.”121 The essential glory that each soul gets upon entering heaven
will remain the same for eternity. The accidental glory, however, may increase, and does in fact
increase. This is easy to understand. Good works do not end with their execution; they continue
bearing fruit, and only at the end of time can their consequences be fully reckoned. Thus, a good work
or an exemplary life does not reach its full stature until all the good effects that it caused and continues
to cause along the course of history can be completely measured and accounted. As long as history
lasts, accidental glory can increase. Moreover, the operations of the soul will be more perfect after
the resurrection, when they shall have rejoined their own bodies. And the glorification of the body
shall further add to the accidental glory of the soul.
8.6.9 The Properties of Blessedness
The essential properties of beatitude are:
A most perfect love for God, which completely fills and satisfies the aspirations of the human
heart, bringing about perfect happiness,
Absolute impeccability, which is a consequence of the direct vision of God and of perfect
charity,
Eternity, which has to be understood as lasting forever, as having no end, but should not be
confused with the divine attribute of eternity.
8.7 Limbo: The State of those Who Die Without Personal Sin
Limbo was suggested as an intermediary state of the souls of those who die without personal sin, but
with original sin still unwashed by Baptism. After the resurrection, their bodies would join their souls.
Since, seemingly, these conditions can be found only in children who die before reaching the age of
reason, this state is also called limbo of children. The doctrine of limbo has never been defined as
dogma by the Church; it was a theological hypothesis mostly depending on St. Augustine’s doctrine
of original sin. Sacred Scripture does not expressly mention limbo. The sacred books focus instead
on the possibility of death in sin (and subsequent hell), or in grace (and ensuing heaven). Thus we
120 ST, I, q. 12, a. 6. 121 Cf. CCC, 1029.
read: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5).
Moreover, it is expressly stated that the damned are in hell due to personal sins (cf. Mt 25:31-46).
The Magisterium also dealt about this issue in the past. Catholic theology has sought answers in
accord with the mercy of God the Father. God’s universal will for salvation is a fact, (“God wants
everybody to be saved,” 1 Timothy 2:4), and also is true that “Jesus died for all.” The Catechism of
the Catholic Church, while not failing to stress the paramount importance of baptism, teaches that,
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of
God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men
should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come
to me, do not hinder them,” [Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation
for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little
children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.122
Jesus instituted the sacraments as ordinary means to salvation. The Church does not know of any
means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to
neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of
water and the Spirit.” The sacraments are ordinarily necessary; those who can receive them and refuse
to do so are accountable before God. But God did not bind himself to these means. Baptism of desire
and the feast of the Holy Innocents are confirmations of this. God has the power to remedy this lack
of grace even without a sacrament. Therefore, God could supply that grace outside of Baptism. Thus,
one may think that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by
God outside the Sacrament of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely
the lack of grace that should be there.
The great compassion of God, who wants everyone to be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children
allow us to presume that there is a way of salvation for children who die without Baptism. “The
Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith
without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of
blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” The
Church, fulfilling the mission entrusted by Christ, urges the celebration of Baptism for children as
soon as possible. The Code of Canon Law says: “Parents are obliged to see that their infants are
baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they
are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly
prepared for it.” Any unreasonable delay of the reception of Baptism is frowned upon, since Baptism
is necessary for supernatural life and salvation (cf. Jn 3:5). The necessary preparation of parents for
the baptism of their children is not an excuse to postpone the sacrament, since that would deprive the
child of supernatural life and put him in danger of not being saved. Therefore, the same canon says
that, “if the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay.” This canon upholds
the permanent teaching of the Church on the matter.
122 CCC, 1261.
8.8 Second Coming of Christ
8.8.1 Christ Will Come Again
The second coming of Christ at the end of time is a truth of faith repeatedly found in Sacred Scripture:
“For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up and
high.…And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled” (Is 2:12–17). “I saw in the night visions, and
behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of
Days and was presented before him” (Dn 7:13). “Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven, and then all tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:30; cf. Mk 13:26; Lk 21:5–36). “Hereafter you
will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt
26:64; cf. Ps 110; Mt 16:27). “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command,
with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise
first” (1 Thes 4:16). Many other passages of Sacred Scripture attest to this truth (cf. Am 5:18; Zec
9:9; Acts 1:11, 3:20; Jn 21:22; Ti 2:13; 2 Thes 2:8; 1 Tm 6:14).
This truth is repeatedly found in Tradition as well1, and has been constantly proclaimed by the solemn
Magisterium of the Church, and by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Creed of the People
of God affirms that Christ “ascended into heaven, whence he will come again to judge the living and
the dead, each according to his merits. And of his kingdom there will be no end.”
8.8.2 Christ Coming as Judge
The usual formula of the symbols of faith links the Ascension of Christ to heaven with his sitting at
the “right hand of God the Father Almighty,” from where he will come to judge the living and the
dead, and establish a kingdom without end: The Kingdom of God (cf. Lk 24:51; Mk 16:19; Acts 1:9;
2:33). The Sacred Scripture informs us that there are two comings of the Son of God: the one when
he assumed human flesh for our salvation in the womb of a virgin; the other when he shall come at
the end of the world to judge all mankind. This latter coming is called in Scripture the day of the Lord
(2 Pt 3:10). “The day of the Lord,” says the Apostle, “shall come as a thief in the night” (1 Thes 5:2);
and our Lord Himself says: “Of that day and hour no one knows” (Mt 24:36; Mk 13:31).
In proof of the [final] judgment it is enough to adduce the authority of the Apostle: “We must all
appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body,
according to what he hath done, whether it be good or evil” (2 Cor 5:10). There are numerous passages
of Sacred Scripture [cf. 1 Kgs 2:10; Ps 95:13; 97:9; Is 2:12; Jer 46:10; Dn 7:26; Jl 2:1, 81; Zep 1:7,
14; Mal 4:1; Mt 13:40; Lk 17:24; Acts 1:11; 3:20; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 15:51; 1 Thes 1:10; 2 Thes 1:10;
Rv 20:11] which the pastor will find in various places and which not only establish the truth of the
dogma, but also place it in vivid colors before the eyes of the faithful. And if, from the beginning of
the world, that day of the Lord, on which he was clothed with our flesh, was sighed for by all as the
foundation of their hope of deliverance; so also, after the death and ascension of the Son of God, we
should make that other day of the Lord the object of our most earnest desires, “looking for the blessed
hope and coming of the glory of the great God” (Tim 2:13).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the resurrection of all the dead the just and the
sinners (cf. Acts 24:15) will precede the final judgment. This will be the time when “all who are in
the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn5:28–29). Then, Christ will come
“in his glory, and all the angels with him.…Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will
separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.… And they will go
away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Mt 25:31, 32, 46).
8.8.3 The Parousia
The second coming of the Lord is also known as parousia, a Greek word meaning “apparition” or
“presence.” At the parousia, Christ will appear in power and majesty as judge (cf. Dn 7:13; Mt 16:27;
24:30; 26:64), and establish his Kingdom which was inaugurated at the Incarnation in all its fullness.
From the viewpoint of salvation history, the parousia marks the definitive triumph of Christ over sin
and death. This triumph was manifested in Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension, and can be shared
in an inchoate way through sanctifying grace. But it will be fully manifested only at the end of the
world. The parousia is the culmination of the history of salvation: The plans of God will reach
complete fulfillment, in a renewed universe inhabited by glorious bodies.
Upon assuming human nature, our Lord became the head of the human race. On behalf of mankind,
he offered himself to the Father on the cross as a redemptive sacrifice. After the Resurrection, he
shows, in his glorious body, his victory over sin and death, and the superabundance of grace for the
salvation of mankind. Christ is not only the meritorious cause of human’s reconciliation with God;
he is also the efficient-instrumental cause of our salvation as well. Ever since his ascension to “the
right hand of God the Father,” his kingship over creation has been manifested in history, drawing all
things to himself (cf. Jn 12:32). His attraction or drawing force is shown every time a person becomes
a child of God through grace. Divine filiation is a victory that becomes definitive for each person at
the moment of death. By dying in fidelity to Christ, human is united to him forever in heaven, and
becomes a member of the Church triumphant, enjoying the vision of God. The Church triumphant
will reach her perfection and plenitude at the final moment of history, when Christ shall come in
power and majesty to judge the world and to communicate all his saving power to the elect through
the resurrection of their bodies and the total renovation of the world.
8.8.4 Nature of the Second Coming of Christ
As we have seen earlier, Sacred Scripture makes many direct references to the second coming of
Christ, or parousia. St. Mark’s description is especially interesting: “You will see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62). This is
obviously related to the prophecy of Daniel: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds
of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented
before him” (Dn 7:13).
Equally noteworthy is the whole section of the synoptic Gospels known as the synoptic Apocalypse.
It contains descriptions of the coming of Christ in glory and majesty (cf. Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21).
The synoptic Apocalypse contains the following points:
• The prophecy of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem
• The disciples’ questions about that event
• The answer of our Lord
We must bear in mind that the apostles were inquiring about four different matters, which they
understood as one because of the prophecy of Daniel. This prophet associated the destruction of
Jerusalem with the end of the world (Dn 8:11–13, 16–17). Consequently, when our Lord announced
that “there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2), the
apostles understood that he was referring to the destruction of the temple and to his second coming
at the same time. That is why the disciples asked, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the
sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” (Mt 24:3)
The Gospels, especially St. Matthew’s, report a long conversation between Jesus and his disciples. It
begins when Jesus left the temple, and continues while they walk until he sat on the Mount of Olives
(cf. Mt 24:1, 3). The Evangelist reports only Jesus’ answers, leaving aside the questions of the
apostles. Our Lord deals with four clearly defined issues:
i) The ruin of Jerusalem (cf. Mt 24:21–28)
ii) The signs that will precede the ruin of Jerusalem (cf. Mt 24:4–20)
iii) The end of time (cf. Mt 24:29ff; 25:21ff)
iv) The signs that will precede the end of time and the second coming of Christ (cf. Mt 24:36ff; 24:14;
Rom 11:25ff; 2 Thes 2:3)
Sacred Scripture describes the second coming of Christ as the arrival of a king in glory, with all the
pageant and solemnity of an official ceremony. Our Lord will be received by people who will go out
to meet him as people go out to meet their sovereign. St. Paul says, “For the Lord himself will descend
from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of
God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord”
(1 Thes 4:16–17). On the other hand, we are told that a new age, the definitive era, will begin. It will
be the times of the restoration of all things (cf. Acts 3:21), when God will be “everything to everyone”
(1 Cor 15:28). As we said before, the Parousia, or second coming of Christ, is called the “day of the
Lord” (cf. 1 Cor 8; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Thes 2:2), meaning the triumph of Christ overall and
everything. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own
order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when
he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is
death” (1 Cor 15:22–26; cf. Ps 2:9; 110:1).
8.8.5 The Signs of the Coming of Our Lord
Some passages of Sacred Scripture read as if the hagiographer saw the Parousia as imminent. This is
the case of the above-quoted epistle to the Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thes 4:16–18). The Apostle seems to
be convinced that he will be still alive at the time of the Parousia. We should understand this in the
sense that the second coming of Christ should be desired and expected as soon as possible, since it
implies the triumph of Christ and the coming of the Kingdom of God. Thus, we ask in the Lord’s
Prayer, “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10). This is the most probable meaning of the liturgical and
biblical expression Maranatha: “Our Lord, come!” (1 Cor 16:22). Others take it as an announcement:
“The Lord comes.” In any case, the Apocalypse clearly expresses a desire for the coming of our Lord,
which can be only his second coming: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears
say, ‘Come.’ … He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord
Jesus!” (Rev 22:17, 20).
This desire for the coming of our Lord may be confused with the belief in the imminence of the
parousia. St. Peter already sounded a warning: The time will come when people ask, “Where is the
promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were
from the beginning of creation” (2 Pt 3:4). And he gave the answer as well: “But do not ignore this
one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”
(2 Pet 3:8). In other words, the prophecy of the second coming of our Lord is not explicit about the
exact date of the event. Nevertheless, we know that some signs will precede the coming of Christ.
In the first place, the Gospel itself says that cosmic disasters or catastrophes will precede the day of
the Lord. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a
loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it
will be burned up” (2 Pt 3:10). St. Mark says that “in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give its light. And the stars will be falling from heaven, and the
powers in the heavens will be shaken” (Mk 13:24–25).
Another sign will be the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world. As St. Matthew says, “this
gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations;
and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14). The coming of the glorious Messiah, in a specific moment
of history (cf. Rom 11:31), is tied up to the acknowledgment of the Messiah by all of Israel (cf. Rom
11:26; Mt 23:39). Thus, the conversion of the Jews is also included among the signs of the parousia.
St. Peter tells the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: “Repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins
may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may
send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing
all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old” (Acts 3:19–21). St. Paul affirms:
“For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life
from the dead?” (Rom 11:15). And, “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand
this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles
come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–26). The entry of the fullness of the Jews (cf.
Rom 11:12) in the Messianic salvation, following the fullness of the Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:25; Lk
21:24), will make the people of God reach “the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) in which “God may be
everything to everyone” (1 Cor 15:28).
Finally, there is a third sign with a double content: general apostasy and triumph of the Antichrist.
The Church will have to go through a final test that will shake the faith of many believers (cf. Lk
18:8; Mt 24:12). The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on the earth (cf. Lk 21:12; Jn
15:19–20) will reveal the “mystery of iniquity” under the form of religious deception, which will
provide an apparent solution for people’s problems at the price of apostatizing from the truth.
St. Paul reassures the Thessalonians, who worried about the imminent coming of our Lord: “Let no
one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [other versions read
apostasy] comes first, and the man (sic) of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes
and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the
temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thes 2:3–4). The supreme religious deception is
the Antichrist’s, that is, a pseudo-Messianism in which human will glorify himself, installing himself
in the place of God and his Messiah. The Kingdom will not be accomplished by a triumph of the
Church (cf. Rv 13:8) in the form of a growing historical process, but by a victory of God over evil
(cf. Rv 20:7–10) who will make his bride come down out of heaven (cf. Rv 21:2–4). God’s triumph
over the rebellion of evil will take the form of a final judgment (cf. Rv 20:12) after the final cosmic
destruction of this world (cf. 2 Pt 3:12–13).
8.9 Resurrection of the Dead
8.9.1 The Truth of the Resurrection
When Christ comes to judge humans in all his power and majesty, their bodies will rise. Each human
will recover his/her own body, and will remain in this situation for all eternity. What we said before
about the immortality of the soul is especially relevant here: Only the bodies resurrect, joining their
respective souls, which subsisted separately after death. Many passages of Sacred Scripture affirm
the truth of the resurrection. References are more frequent in the New Testament, but the Old
Testament is also quite explicit (cf. Is 26:19; Dn 12:2; Mt 24:31; Lk 14:14; Jn 5:29; 1 Cor 15:32;
Rom 8:18–25; 1 Thes 4:13–17; Heb 6:2; Rv 20:12). We profess this truth in the Creed: “We believe
in the resurrection of the body.” It is similarly expressed in all the symbols and in countless
declarations of the solemn Magisterium of the Church. The Christian dogma affirms that the dead
will resurrect, that is, that they will assume again the same bodies from which they were parted at
death.
8.9.2 The Resurrection of the Body
Sacred Tradition has always used the expression resurrection of the body, while resurrection of the
dead is seldom found. There are very specific reasons for this. When a person dies, it is the whole
subject that suffers death the separation of body and soul. The body, deprived of its vital principle,
decays. The soul, being spiritual, subsists. When resurrection is understood as applying to the whole
subject, it means that the soul recovers its body, informing it again. Scripture, however, understands
resurrection in the sense of restoration of the body: The souls are supposed to rejoin their bodies,
which have already decomposed and, therefore, have to be restored in some way. Recently, the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recommended that the vernacular versions of the Creed
retain the expression resurrection of the body. This is in order to prevent the mistaken notion that the
soul will also resurrect.
8.9.3 The Reality of the Resurrection
This perennial teaching of the Church is founded on Sacred Scripture, which clearly speaks of the
resurrection at the end of time. St. Mark says, “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read
in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Mk 12:26).
In the Gospel of St. John, we read: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are
in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:28–29; cf. Mt 22:23–33; Lk
20:27–38).
Chapter 15 of the first epistle to the Corinthians is especially relevant. There, on the basis of our
Lord’s resurrection, St. Paul refutes those who deny the resurrection of the dead. St. Paul clearly sees
as anyone can that the resurrection of our Lord is an apologetic argument of the first order. St. Peter
uses it in the same way for his catechesis, especially in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2:14–36; 3:11–26; 4:5–
12). St. Paul, however, goes one step farther in his epistle. He shows that the resurrection of our Lord
is the true cause of our resurrection: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits
of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection
of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:20–22). In his
discourse in Capernaum, our Lord said several times that he would resurrect the dead on “the last
day” (Jn 6:40, 44, 54). It is obvious that his preaching had spread the faith in the resurrection, as is
shown in Martha’s statement before the resurrection of Lazarus (cf. Jn 11:23–26).
Sacred Tradition unanimously affirms this truth of faith. It is clear both from the writings of the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and from Christian archaeology cemeteries, veneration of relics,
and funeral liturgy. Theology can explain the fittingness of the resurrection of the body with
metaphysical and theological reasons. First, the spiritual and immortal soul subsists after death, but
it continues to be ordained to the body as its substantial form. Thus, resurrection is in some way
convenient for the soul. Moreover, death is a result of original sin. Christ’s triumph over sin is also a
victory over its consequence, death. St. Paul already advanced this argument: “The last enemy to be
destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:26).
There is still a third argument, which is of a moral nature: The necessity of an adequate requital. A
perfect remuneration, in accordance with the wisdom of God, has to affect the whole person, body
and soul. This requires the resurrection of the body.
8.9.4 Nature of the Resurrection
Christian dogma affirms the existence of the resurrection. It also states that we will resurrect precisely
with our own body, “in the same flesh in which we now live … not … in a body of air or in any
different kind of body (as some have foolishly thought); but we shall rise in this very body in which
we now live and are and move … in this same flesh which we have and not any other.”123
St. Paul is quite specific: “‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ You
foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body
which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.… So it is with the
resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in
dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body;
123 Formula of Faith of Damasus: DS 72; Symbol of Faith of the Eleventh Council of Toledo: DS 540; Profession of Faith
proposed to the Waldensians in the Fourth Lateran Council: DS 797.
it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.…We shall all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and
the dead will be raised imperishable” (1 Cor 15:35–37, 42–44, 51–52). Resurrection is described as
the reunion of the souls with their bodies, a point emphasized by the most recent Magisterium. St.
Thomas deals with this doctrine in different places, but he always insists that:
We cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second
rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body, which after death
falls, rather than the soul, which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body that the
soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body.124
The risen body should be the same in which human served God with good works, or the devil with
sins, so that it can also share in the reward or punishment of these deeds.125
Christian humanism emphasizes integral human fulfillment in Jesus. But fulfillment in Jesus is more
than fulfillment in divine life. Since Jesus is not only God but man, and now man with a glorified,
resurrected body; union with him also means fulfillment in human life and in human goods, including
bodily resurrection life. As this authentic humanism emerges, Christian life comes to be seen more
clearly as communal life. So, for instance, Pius XI, stressing the restoration of all things to God in Jesus,
established the feast of Christ the King; the implication is that Christians are fellow citizens of his
kingdom, which is already present (though imperfectly so) on earth. Similarly, the Church comes to be
seen not simply as an institution providing spiritual services, but as the community of Christian faith
and apostolic life. Pius XII presents it as the Mystical Body of Christ, Vatican II as the People of God.
These are communal, corporate concepts; the Church is one bread, one body, one people.126
After the resurrection, there will no longer be any change. Every human will remain in his definitive
state for all eternity. No further separation of body and soul is to be expected, because bodies will
have been made incorruptible, and therefore, immortal. But resurrection will have a different meaning
for the just and for the sinners: The former will be glorified and the latter will be condemned.
8.9.5 Qualities of the Resurrected Bodies
Divine revelation emphasizes that the transformation of the entire man/woman is the ultimate object
of Christian hope. Our hope does not look forward to the eternal life of the soul alone, but to the
eternal life of the whole human person, body and soul. There is an eternal life of salvation, as a
participation of the entire human in the glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And there is also an
eternal life of damnation, in which the separation from God, which is effected by sin, will become
eternal. This separation will also affect the bodies of the damned.
The resurrection implies a radical transformation of the condition of the body, far beyond the present
mode of life. St. Paul mentions some qualities of the risen bodies.
• Incorruptibility means that the just will not suffer or die again. They will be impassible. The Book
of Revelation says, “And death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor
124 ST, Suppl., q. 79, a. 1; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 4.80–81; Comp. Theol. 53. 125 Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.11.8. 126 G. Grisez and R. Shaw, Fulfillment in Christ, 396.
pain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rv 21:4). This quality is called
impassibility, and is described as an “endowment or gift … that shall place them beyond the reach
of suffering anything disagreeable or of being affected by pain or inconvenience of any sort.
Neither the piercing severity of cold, nor the glowing intensity of heat, nor the impetuosity of
waters can hurt them. ‘It is sown,’ says the Apostle, ‘in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption.’
This quality the Scholastics call impassibility, not incorruption, in order to distinguish it as a
property peculiar to a glorified body. The bodies of the damned, though incorruptible, will not be
impassible; they will be capable of experiencing heat and cold and of suffering various afflictions”
(cf. 1 Cor 15:42–44).127
• Brightness or clarity is another property of the resurrected bodies. The bodies of the saints will
share in the brightness of the glorious body of our Lord.
The bodies of the Saints shall shine like the sun, according to the words of our Lord recorded in the
Gospel of St. Matthew: “The just shall shine as the sun, in the Kingdom of their Father” (Mt 13:43).
This brightness is a sort of radiance reflected on the body from the supreme happiness of the soul. It
is a participation in that bliss which the soul enjoys, just as the soul itself is rendered happy by a
participation in the happiness of God. Unlike the gift of impassibility, this quality is not common to
all in the same degree. All the bodies of the Saints will be equally impassible; but the brightness of
all will not be the same, for, according the Apostle, “One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of
the moon, and another the glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory: so also is the
resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:41–42).
• Power, strength, or agility is the third quality of the risen body. In this life, frailty and heaviness
nag the body as a consequence of original sin. By virtue of its agility, “the body will be freed from
the heaviness that now presses it down; and will take on a capability of moving with the utmost
ease and swiftness, wherever the soul pleases.”
• Spirituality or subtlety is the fourth quality of the risen body. St. Paul uses the term spiritual
body. This quality “subjects the body to the dominion of the soul, so that the body shall be subject
to the soul and ever ready to follow her desires (cf. 1 Cor 15:44).” The soul, in turn, is perfectly
subject and docile to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit.
It should be noted that the Pauline teaching on the qualities of the glorious body does not contradict
the Magisterium’s doctrine of the identity between the resurrected and the mortal body. St. Paul
himself affirms this identity, despite the differences between the two situations of the same body (cf.
1 Cor 15:35–44, 53–54).
Theologians do not agree as to the manner of this identity. Some think that it requires the presence of
the same matter constituting the body at some stage of its life. Others believe that a formal identity is
enough, since the body, regardless of its matter, will be the same body as long as it is informed by
the same soul.
127 Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.11.13.
Nevertheless, the first opinion seems to be more in agreement with the Magisterium, which has
repeatedly affirmed that the soul will return to its own body, or to its own flesh. For the damned, the
resurrection will not be an effect of grace, but a consequence of the personal unity of human. It is
only just that the bodies that had been party in the commission of sin share in the punishment of their
souls.
Sacred Tradition is not very explicit on the condition of the bodies of the damned. The only
affirmation we can find is that, for the reprobates, resurrection will mean the raising of their bodies
for eternal damnation, with all its consequences.
St. Thomas thinks that the bodies of the damned will probably rise without any deformity, but still
with the defects that are proper to the material state. Besides, they will be incorruptible, since, being
destined to hell for all eternity, they will have to endure forever the torment of fire without being
consumed.
Finally, St. Thomas also emphasizes the passible character of the bodies of the damned. They are
destined to eternal torments, and if they were impassible, they would be invulnerable to pain (cf. Mt
25:46).
8.10 Final Judgement and the Renewal of the World
As we saw earlier, prophecies and symbols describe the second coming of Christ “in power and
majesty.” We can then portend that the power and majesty is related to the last judgment and the
definitive establishment of the Kingdom of God. The latter is in turn linked to the total renewal of
the world. We will discuss both in this last chapter.
8.10.1 The Final Judgment
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium clearly and constantly attest to the truth of
the final judgment. St. Augustine affirms that “no one denies or doubts that there will be a final
judgment by Christ, as the Sacred Books proclaim.”128 It is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ will
come to judge the living and the dead, that is, all people of all times. Christ himself solemnly
announced this when he talked about his second coming. He repeated the announcement on the day
of the Ascension, and his apostles and disciples understood it in that way (cf. Mt 16:27; 26:31–46;
Acts 1:11; 10:42; Rom 14:10).
In the Old Testament, the universal judgment forms the backdrop of the prophecies against the
infidelity of Israel, against the peoples of the earth, and against the whole world. The New Testament
is much more explicit, revealing that, at a certain moment, at the end of time, the whole human race
will appear before Christ, who will come with great power and majesty to judge all people according
to their works (cf. Jer 46; 51; Is 13; 27; Rom 2:2–10; Mt 24:30–31; 25:31, 32, 46; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pt
4:4–5; Rv 20:13).
128 St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 20.30.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church speak in many ways about the final judgment. They describe
in great detail the way in which it will take place and its different aspects. This shows that the issue
was quite clear in Sacred Tradition.
The Magisterium of the Church has defined as dogma the existence of the final judgment. This
teaching is already found in the earliest symbols: the Apostles’ Creed, the Quicumque Symbol, the
Nicene -Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Profession of Faith of the Fourth Lateran Council. It has
also been upheld by the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and
the bull Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII.
Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God professes it as follows: “He ascended to heaven whence he will
come again to judge the living and the dead, each according to his merits. Those who have responded
to the love and compassion of God will go to eternal life. Those who have refused them to the end
will be consigned to the fire that is never extinguished.” And it concludes saying, “And of his
kingdom there will be no end.”129
The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares that the final judgment will reveal the last
consequences of our actions and omissions. The truth of the relations of each person with God will
be shown when we appear before Christ, who is the Truth.
Sacred Scripture alludes to divine wrath in connection with the last judgment. Nevertheless, its main
theme will be the triumph of Christ and the establishment of the definitive world, or total renewal of
the world. Hence, the preaching of the last judgment is seen against the backdrop of the love of God
inviting us to penance.
Sacred Scripture does not give many details about the final judgment.
We know only that:
• Christ will come in all glory, surrounded by angels;
• he will summon all peoples and all men;
• he will requite each one for his deeds, according to the measure of his love;
• he will establish his definitive Kingdom, and hand it over to the Father; and
• he will be assisted by the apostles in this judgment (cf. Mt 25:35–46; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Lk
22:30).
The main difficulty lays in the existence of two judgments. If every human undergoes a particular
judgment, it seems that there is no need for a universal judgment. St. Thomas faced the problem and
found a solution: “Why a Universal Judgment? Are not all men (sic) rewarded right after death? It
has to be pointed out that the reward granted to men (sic) in the just judgment of God is twofold. In
the first place, the reward of the soul; later, the reward of the body. The reward of the soul is given
out right after death; but in the Final Judgment they will also receive the glory of the body.”130
129 Paul VI, Creed of the People of God, 12. 130 St. Thomas Aquinas, Expos. in Ev. Mt., 25.
The final judgment will take place “when on the same day and in the same place all men (sic) shall
stand together before the tribunal of their Judge, that in the presence and hearing of all human beings
of all times each may know his final doom and sentence. The announcement of this judgment will
constitute no small part of the pain and punishment of the wicked; whereas the good and just will
derive great reward and consolation from the fact that it will then appear what each one was in life.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the final judgment will happen when Christ
returns in glory. Only God the Father knows the day and the hour. He will pronounce through his
Son, Jesus Christ, the last judgment over history. We will know the ultimate meaning of the entire
work of creation, and of the economy of salvation. We will understand the admirable way through
which God’s providence has led all things to their ultimate end. The final judgment will show that
God’s justice prevails over all the injustices that are perpetrated by his creatures, and that God’s love
is stronger that death (cf. Song 8:6).
The arguments that are offered by theologians can be summed up as follows:
• The glory of Christ and his universal sovereignty
• The open manifestation of providence in individual lives and in the whole of history
• The public ratification of the irrevocable sentence of the particular judgment
• The resurrection of the bodies, which will mean more accidental glory for the blessed and more
punishment for the damned.
The universal judgment is the definitive triumph of good over evil. Once the devil, sin, and death are
defeated and all people are judged, all things will return to God for his eternal glory.
8.10.2 The Total Renewal of the World
At the end of time, the world and everything in it will not return to nothingness. They will instead be
renewed or changed for the better. This is a truth of faith. In 1459, Pius II condemned a series of
propositions by Zaninus de Solcia. One of these stated that the world would be annihilated.
The Catechism teaches that the unity of human kind will be accomplished, and that mankind will be
no longer wounded by sin. Because of the profound community of destiny between the material world
and man, the material universe will also be transformed “so that the world itself, restored to its
primitive state, will be at the service of the just without any obstacle,” and will participate in the
glorification of the risen Christ.
Isaiah speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. In the New Testament, Christ asserted that heaven
and earth will pass away, but then be regenerated or transformed. St. Peter, speaking in the name of
Christ, preached the same doctrine (cf. Is 65:17; 66:22; Mt 5:18; Mt 19:28; 24:35; Acts 3:21; 2 Pt
3:3–13).
St. Paul adds that this new creation human and cosmic goes through stages. It was inaugurated with
the resurrection of Christ. Christ is the “first fruits” and after him will come “those who belong to
Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father.… The last enemy to
be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:23–24, 26). He also describes the creatures that expect to be freed
by the manifestation of the liberty of the glory of the children of God. The Book of Revelation is
especially eloquent: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth
had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down
out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.… And he who sat upon the
throne said: ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ Also he said: ‘Write this, for these words are trustworthy
and true.… He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son’”
(Rv 21:1–2, 5, 7; cf. Rom 8:19–22). Theology explains this truth on the basis of the dignity of the
creator, which requires creation not to be annihilated, but rather transformed at the end of history.
There is also an anthropological reason. Human is the king of creation, and the destiny of creation is,
in some way, bound up with his. Cosmos and history are the stage of human’s actions, for good or
for evil.
Finally, man/woman is the head of the universe, the Church is the head of humankind, and Christ is
the head of the Church. For St. Thomas, the Pauline recapitulation of all things in Christ means the
“re-establishment of everything in Christ that is, by Christ in heaven and on earth, since peace is made
between heaven and earth; this restoration is to be understood as regards sufficiency, although not all
will be restored according to efficacy” (cf. Eph 1:9–10; Col 1:18–19).
The manner of this renewal is usually summarized as follows. In the first place, there will be a
universal conflagration, a break between this world and the world of the future. The new world will
not be just a continuation of the present one. Besides, the world will be somehow purified from the
remains of the sins that were committed by humans in this present world. To explain this point, the
present world is usually compared to a temple that has to be consecrated anew after a profanation.
The world the temple that is inhabited by man/woman has been defiled by sin. It needs a new
consecration for Christ to reign in it after his second coming. This renewal should not be understood
as an essential change, but simply as a change of situation, state, or quality.
The purpose of this renewal is hinted when we say that the new world is destined to be the dwelling
place of the glorified bodies. It thus has an anthropological purpose. But its main purpose is
Christological. Christ will restore all things in himself, those of the heavens and those of the earth,
thus freeing them from the slavery of sin (cf. Rom 8:19–22). This restoration implies a renewal, giving
rise to a world that is united in harmony, over which the victorious Christ will reign. Creation will
thereby share in the glory of its head, Christ.
Thus, the goodness of God will shine forth in the new world. The divine wisdom will be manifested
and God will be “everything to everyone” (1 Cor 15:28).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994. Vatican: Vatican Press.
Gaudium et Spes (GS) in Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New
Revised Edition 1992. Edited by Austin Flannery, OP. Collegeville, Indiana: The Liturgical
Press.
Ahlgren, Gillian T W 1999. The human person and the church. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von 1972. Man in history. London: The Catholic Book Club.
_______1967. A theological anthropology. New York: Sheed and Ward.
Barth, Karl 1958-61. “The doctrine of creation.” Vol. 3 of Church dogmatics. Edinburgh: T and T
Clark.
Butterworth, SJ, Robert 1969. The theology of creation. Butler. Wisconsin: Clergy Book Service.
Frankl, Viktor E 1971. Man's search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.
Haffner, Paul 1995. Mystery of creation. Herefordshire: Gracewing.
Haves, Zachary 2001. The gift of being: A theology of creation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press.
_______1980. What are they saying about creation? New York: Paulist Press.
Pope John Paul II 1995. Encyclical letter: The Gospel of life (Evangelium vitae).
Ladaria, Luis F 1995. “Anthropology II: Christian” in Rene Latourelle and Rino Fisichell (eds).
Dictionary of fundamental theology. New York: Crossroad.
Moltmann, Jürgen 1985. God in creation: A new theology of creation and the Spirit of God. San
Francisco: Harper and Row.
Mooney, Christopher F 1996. Theology and scientific knowledge: Changing models of God's
presence in the world. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Neuner, J and Dupuis, J (eds) 1995. The Christian faith in the doctrinal documents of the Catholic
Church. New York: Alba House.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart 1985. Anthropology in theological perspective. Translated by Mathew J.
O'Connell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Peacocke, Arthur R 1979. Creation and the world of science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
_______1986. God and the new biology. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Segundo, J L 1978. Grace and the human condition. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Schmaus, Michael 1969. Dogma 2 - God and creation. New York and London: Sheed and Ward.
Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt 1995. The fall to violence: Original sin in relational theology. New York:
Continuum.
Vatican Council II: The conciliar and post-conciliar documents. Edited by Austin Flannery. OP 1975.
Viladesau, Richard 1984. The reason for our hope: An introduction to Christian anthropology. New
York: Paulist Press.
Westermann, Claus 1974. Creation. Translated by John J. Scullion, SJ. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Young, Norman 1976. Creator, creation and faith. London: Collins.
