# A Catholic Approach to the Genealogical Adam

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-catholic-approach-to-the-genealogical-adam/116>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Adam, Theology\
**Created:** [April 26, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-catholic-approach-to-the-genealogical-adam/116 "2018-04-26T19:14:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 98

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AntoineSuarez](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/antoinesuarez/32/165_2.png) [@AntoineSuarez](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AntoineSuarez)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 10:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-catholic-approach-to-the-genealogical-adam/116/98 "2018-05-14T10:11:38Z")

</div>

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> I am a little puzzled by your remark that after the first sin, God had the choice of “sending again and again sinners **to hell** so that on earth remained only people in state of original grace.” Surely the mere act of sinning does not merit hell.

In case of the angels after the act of sinning they are no longer capable of freely loving God by any means, that is, God could not redeem them (move them to atone) without annihilating their free will. Thus, by sinning the angels **damned themselves** to hell.

In case of humans the act of sinning does not make Redemption impossible. However God was not obliged to redeem human sinners: He had could very well fill Heaven (i.e.: achieve the aim of Creation) by “sending again and again sinners to hell and letting on earth only righteous people who had come to heaven after a time”. Fortunately for us God in his mercy “invented” the state of original sin: “He bounded all to disobedience in order to have mercy on all”.

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> I quite agree with you that there may have been other individuals, in addition to Christ and His mother Mary, who were conceived free from original sin (e.g. St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist or Melchizidek).

Excellent!

For St. Joseph I think like you.

For St. John the Baptist I rather think he became sanctified in his mother Elisabeth’s womb when she heard Mary’s greeting.

The case of Melchizedek seems to me particularly interesting to better understand the origins of humanity. Anyway it deserves more detailed discussion we can have in a separate post.

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> And I would _even_ agree that on the explanation you propose, one could say that every human being conceived in Original Sin is conceived that way _because of_ the sin originally committed by the first human sinner.

Magnificent! Here we have common ground. In fact the very thrust of the Catholic Teaching about Original Sin (including _Humani generis_) is that one has to discuss the origin of humanity outgoing from Jesus Christ’s Redemption and not discuss Jesus Christ’s Redemption outgoing from “Adam and Eve”: The axiom is always **Redemption** , **not** a “primeval **single** couple”.

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> But that _doesn’t_ make these conceptions instances of transmission _by propagation_ . **Propagation** , whichever way you slice it and dice it, refers to something which is _passed on_ , or transmitted, where the original progenitor is not only the **reason** (or _final cause_ ) but also the _efficient cause_ (to borrow an Aristotelian term) of the transmission to his descendants: he’s the one who makes it happen. It seems to me that your model would make of Adam (or the first sinner) merely a bad _exemplar_ (or negative role model), rather than an efficient cause. So I think that’s the big point between us, regarding Original Sin.

Well, if we acknowledge Adam’s sin as “ **happy fault** that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!” then one could distinguish two “efficient causes”, one responsible for the **“fault”** (Adam) and the other for the **“happy”** (the Redeemer). In any case the “final cause” is not “the original progenitor” but God’s aim for Creation (filling heaven). Accordingly Adam (the first sinner) is not “merely a bad exemplar” but the very author or _causa prima_ responsible and accountable for the first sin and therefore for the state of need of Redemption produced by the first sin; whereas God’s will of Redemption is so to speak _causa secunda_ of this state: without God’s will there would be no Redemption and thereby no state of need of Redemption (original sin). In summary, what propagates is the “state of need of Redemption” or “deprivation of original holiness and justice” (as the Catechism of Catholic Church, Nr. 405, referring to the Council of Trent, states).

By the way, in metaphysical discussions I prefer to use the concepts of “author” and “authorship” instead of “cause” and “causality”: the latter trigger “materialistic” reflexes involving processes like “stones breaking glass-windows” that hinder arguing properly, in particular when proving God’s existence.

In another post you have claimed:

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> I do not share Pope Francis’ view that we would be morally obliged to baptize Martians, if they requested it. In Matthew 28:19-20, Christ commands us to make disciples of all _nations_ , not all intelligent beings. Baptism is for humans alone.

You seem to overlook that evolution could very well have produced human beings in other planets. If Martians appear, who look anatomically like we, we can be sure that they are in “state of original sin” and therefore entitled to Redemption to the same extent as we Terrestrials are. So Pope Francis’ view seems to support my explanation of “transmission at generation”, and him one can hardly deny “teaching authority”😄

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-catholic-approach-to-the-genealogical-adam/116)._