The Pre-Human Biological and Cultural Transmission of the Effects of Originating Sin

In recent years, the biological inheritance of what has been traditionally known as original sin has come more clearly to the fore. Examining the genetic forebears of Homo sapiens has allowed for a richer understanding of what exactly the "propagation" of original sin might really mean. The wounded imperfection of the human biological inheritance has clarified matters concerning the question of where exactly original sin comes from. Since the human experience of sentience and agency is built biologically upon the shoulders of its ancestors, the human experience of being always-already bound by sin—an essential component of the meaning of original sin—comes into clearer relief. At the same time, a much richer description can also be given to the cultural-transmission school's description of the transmission of sin as a social and cultural phenomenon. The more closely the connection between culture and biology is understood, the easier it has become to understand that human freedom is not only always transcendent freedom "being-in-situation" as Piet Schoonenberg¹ describes it, but is also precisely transcendent freedom in a predetermined biological and cultural framework.

This article examines the insights of the biological-transmission and cultural-transmission schools of original sin,² noting the ways in which they helpfully supplement both one another and the traditional Catholic way of thinking about the transmission of original sin through propagation rather than imitation. I argue that although these schools do not "solve" the question of the origins of evil, since each of them assumes a prior disorder, they do go a long way in solving the question of the origins of human sinful behavior, thereby pushing back the problem of the origins of evil to a different ontological plane.³ Catholic theology would do well to accept the contributions of these schools and to adapt its theological discourse on original sin accordingly.

PRE-HUMAN BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS IN THE BIOLOGICAL TRANSMISSION SCHOOL

For both Daryl P. Domning and Ted Peters, human genetic inheritance is illuminating for understanding what is meant by the heritage of original sin. Peters is happy to claim that "Adam and Eve can be replaced with our genetic history."⁴ He quotes Jerry D. Korsmeyer to argue: "The sins of the world flow from our genetic heritage which has evolved in a struggle for survival, from human relationships that seek the security of the local group, and from human institutions designed to stabilize power for the interests of their founders."⁵ In other words, inherited sin is both biologically and culturally conditioned: "Each culture is a socially conditioned variation of 'biologically given basic needs of humans.'"⁶ For both Peters and Domning, the biologically conditioned piece is closely associated with "selfishness." This "piece"—"identification of original sin with some definite trait that is passed on by 'propagation' or 'generation' as part of human nature, and not merely by imitation"—clarifies matters greatly according to Domning.⁷ It makes sense of the way that woundedness is passed on generationally and genetically. The trait of "evolutionary selfishness" is the "necessary and sufficient" explanation for the origins of human sinfulness since human agency, as emergent from human nature, would identify itself necessarily with this selfish impulse as its own. Just as human agency, then, is an emergent property that exhibits novel capacities, so too would sin be an emergent phenomenon as an expression of novel emergent faculties.

Peters essentially agrees with Domning on this point. Although at some point in the evolution of the human being "human intelligence became an independent force and culture lifted itself off its biological base,"⁸ it did not thereby leave its biological base behind. A legacy persisted: the propensity for violence, for preferring insiders over outsiders, for selfish behavior. Explains Peters: "We are chained to this legacy."⁹ He then cites Philip Hefner favorably on how biology enriches our understanding of the inherited and inherent character of sin:

(1) Sin is an inherent factor in human awareness. (2) We participate in sin as a condition pertaining to our very origin as...