First, a brief clarification of terms:
Theory – from Late Latin theoria from the Greek theoria meaning a “a view”
Neonatal – meaning of or relating to newborn children
Proclivity – from the Latin proclivitas, a steep descent, steepness, sloping forward, meaning a natural or habitual inclination or tendency; propensity; predisposition.
The theory of neonatal proclivity is usually associated with a quasi-genetic point of view about passing on inappropriate behaviors.
Is there such a theory? I don’t know, but by using different words it challenges us to think about what we mean by the Doctrine of Original Sin.
It holds, first, that the progenitors of the human race, although constitutionally well designed and innocent, fell victim to the temptations of an evil force and departed from their creator’s designs and will.
And, secondly, it holds that their progeny inherited a tendency to the same deviation from their original design and passed it on to their descendants.
According to this doctrine, children are born with “Original Sin”—in the sense, not that they are personally guilty of a sin but that they have inherited a proclivity to sin.
It is the basis for a certain urgency that they receive the sacrament of Baptism, even though they are too young to be aware of it or understand what it is.
(Originally Baptism was only for mature adults who accepted the teaching of Jesus and wanted to join his followers. They symbolically expressed this desire and choice by being ceremoniously washed and clothed in new garments.)
The later custom of also baptizing infant children was an affirmation that they were cleansed from “Original Sin” and pledged by their parents to be raised as Christians. At a future date, hopefully they would personally endorse and reaffirm this symbolic decision.
Adults who led a Christian life were presumed to be saved and ultimately in Heaven after death; those who did not were presumed to be damned and in Hell.
Since unbaptized infant children could not fit into either category, a new concept was introduced to cover their situation: that they were poised, as it were, at the frontier of Heaven. This state of being, called Limbo, was identified as neither a punishment nor a reward, but a consequence of having been born and died with “Original Sin”.
This point of view, popular for many centuries, now can seem flawed and unjust.
A tendency or a propensity to do something wrong, to commit a sin, is not the same as actually doing it.
Some of the greatest saints may have been tormented by temptations to sin which they successful resisted—or, as the case may be, they may have committed a sin and then repented their decision and atoned for it.
To the contemporary mind, it seems implausible and a violation of logic and justice that someone be adjudged guilty of a temptation that he or she actually successfully resisted.
Sin is a decision and cannot be inherited. However, the inclination to think otherwise is understandable, as one considers the many evils of ancient and modern societies and the so many bad choices of others.
In biblical and early post-biblical times when adults accepted the teachings of Jesus and sought acceptance into the early Christian community (the Church), they repented past decisions and choices and resolved to follow a new life style.
There was not yet a concern nor thought about neonatal proclivities!
18 December 2022