Is Shame a virtue?

[zippy2006]

Nothing about humans as created is displeasing to God; He created us after all. The problem is with us, due to our fallen state. In Eden, Adam and Eve were naked and they had no shame of their bodies. In their created innocence they didn't even know they were naked. There was probably no word for naked as that was simply the way things were. Only after disobeying God, in seeking to be their own gods, did they find offence in their "creatureliness", as it’s been called, viewing some aspects of it as inferior. They were now ashamed of themselves and hid because of it.

This JPII-reading sort of ignores the fact that they realized they were naked because they gained knowledge of good and evil from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we pay attention to Genesis 3, they did not realize they were naked merely because they disobeyed God. They realized they were naked because of the new knowledge they had attained, and they attained that knowledge by eating, in disobedience, a forbidden fruit.

The problem with this sort of reading is that it leans into the idea that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was just an evil tree, or was just off-limits simpliciter. The Fathers are pretty clear that it was not an evil tree, it was not off-limits simpliciter, and that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree in due time, when they were mature enough to do so. In simple terms: their act of disobedience was evil, but the knowledge they gained by eating the fruit was not necessarily false. It is a case of knowing something before one is mature enough to handle it.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Nothing about humans as created is displeasing to God; He created us after all. The problem is with us, due to our fallen state....

In our sinful perception, I agree.

It's historically been taught that, with the Fall, man had in some manner become divided from God, from the rest of creation, from his fellow man, and from and within himself.

This is a great statement.

I have frequently pointed out three of those relationships, but you have listed a fourth which I think is valid.

• Our relationship with God before the fall was perfect. It was broken at the fall.
• Our calling and ability to have dominion over the earth was hampered by the fall.
• A relationship with other people and our spouse was perfect before the fall, but it was damaged by the fall.
• Finally, our relationship with our own selves was perfect before the fall. " Without shame." That was damaged by the fall.

It was the second point that I have never pointed out before. So thanks for that.

What? I don't think most people stop to think about is the fact that the reality for mankind before the fall is still the ideal for mankind after the fall.

• God still wants us to walk with him in a pure relationship with him.
• God still wants us to take good care of the planet. That calling has not been revoked.
• God still wants us to have healthy relationships with others and especially with our own spouse. Jesus answered the Pharisees' questions about marriage in a fallen world by quoting Genesis 2:24.

The last point is also true...

• Naked and unashamed is still God's ideal for mankind in a fallen world.

Whatever that means or however we live it out, that has to be something that we address and wrestle with.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

This JPII-reading sort of ignores the fact that they realized they were naked because they gained knowledge of good and evil from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we pay attention to Genesis 3, they did not realize they were naked merely because they disobeyed God. They realized they were naked because of the new knowledge they had attained, and they attained that knowledge by eating, in disobedience, a forbidden fruit.

It wasn't just the fruit, Zippy. When God asked Adam about it, he said, "Who told you that you were naked?"

We can safely assume that God knew the answer to his question and he asked it that way on purpose... To point out that the agency for them recognizing that they were naked was not simply a matter of fruit that gave them additional insight, but the voice of an entity whose design was against them and against God.

At very least, that throws great question on to the presumption that when they realize they were naked, that that realization was a truth upon which they needed to act. God's question to them sounds more like a rebuke than an affirmation.

I have observed that after Adam and Eve sinned, they did three things.

1. They covered their bodies
2. They hid from God
3. They deflected blame instead of confessing and repenting.

No One would suggest that points 2 and 3 were the correct actions, so why does anyone ever suggest that point one was the correct and right thing to do?

Isn't it safer to read the text and conclude that nothing they did after they sinned was pleasing to God?

The problem with this sort of reading is that it leans into the idea that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was just an evil tree, or was just off-limits simpliciter. The Fathers are pretty clear that it was not an evil tree, it was not off-limits simpliciter, and that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree in due time, when they were mature enough to do so. In simple terms: their act of disobedience was evil, but the knowledge they gained by eating the fruit was not necessarily false. It is a case of knowing something before one is mature enough to handle it.

Correct...

And that assertion argues again that they were not mature enough to correctly respond to this knowledge. Therefore, the most likely result is they did indeed respond incorrectly on all counts.

I think just a little pondering simply concludes that the right response would have been to run immediately to God in confession and repentance... no hiding, no excuses, and no fig leaves.

I just cannot see any basis to argue that covering their bodies was in any way the correct response in that moment.

 

[fhansen]

This JPII-reading sort of ignores the fact that they realized they were naked because they gained knowledge of good and evil from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we pay attention to Genesis 3, they did not realize they were naked merely because they disobeyed God. They realized they were naked because of the new knowledge they had attained, and they attained that knowledge by eating, in disobedience, a forbidden fruit.

I didn't get that from JP II as far as I'm aware although I wouldn't be ashamed to defer to him in most things. Either way I'm not sure if you're saying anything different; the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was their act of disobedience. The message is that disobedience of God is a game changer. From then on, by not recognizing His authority, their world changed; He was no longer their God for all practical purposes That's why we're born without the "knowledge of God" now, in need of coming to know Him.

The knowledge gained by their act was the direct, experiential knowledge intrinsic to that very state: the evil that results when creation is no longer aligned in will with it's Creator. That unalignment, that radical anomaly, that alienation from God is the essence of sin, and the definition of "original sin".

Good is also known, by default, because that's already here, all of creation is necessarily good. The privation of that goodness is evil and, again, the first step to that privation, that evil, for men or angels is to become autonomous from God, and the cause of that is the foolish pride that was at the root of their disobedience. So here in our brave new world we literally know or experience both good and evil. And I can defer to Aquinas on that concept.

The only cure for this foolish insanity is the love of God, when we see it and begin to value it enough ourselves to turn back to Him now, returning that love. Then obedience begins to flow naturally, of its own accord. That's why Jesus came, to definitively reveal the love of God so we'll have something truly worth believing in, hoping in, and, most importantly, loving in a world that chose to be apart from Him and that love.

The problem with this sort of reading is that it leans into the idea that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was just an evil tree, or was just off-limits simpliciter. The Fathers are pretty clear that it was not an evil tree, it was not off-limits simpliciter, and that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree in due time, when they were mature enough to do so. In simple terms: their act of disobedience was evil, but the knowledge they gained by eating the fruit was not necessarily false. It is a case of knowing something before one is mature enough to handle it.

That may be true, and yet God knew they would eat of it, of course, and presumably knew that they-mankind-could ultimately benefit, mature, by eating of it, by learning the hard way, for themselves, that nothing good is gained by disobedience of God. There's nothing good about evil, or even of knowing about it other then to come to hate and shun it, to learn that God is right after all and that there's a vast difference between Creator and creature, as the CCC relates. Either way, of course the tree wasn’t evil; it was probably symbolic of the choice laid before them anyway: obedience or disobedience.

"The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom." CCC 396

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually I believe that the human form itself is created by God to elicit lust. Without lust we would never procreate. But lust is a lot like hunger. Hunger is natural but we should not let it lead to gluttony.

This is an interesting idea. Is it a theologoumemnon on your part? I would be surprised if it did not have some basis in the Greek or Syrian fathers. Indeed this also makes a lot of sense of the Song of Solomon, which is the most erotic text in scripture.

 

[public hermit]

"Have you no shame?!?"​

Once upon a time, such a question might have been asked of a young man or a young woman if they dared to wear clothing that was judged to be too "revealing" or "sensual."

The question, of course, is loaded with a very significant assumption... that a young person SHOULD have some shame about their bodies... or least as it relates to allowing some parts of their bodies to be seen by others.

It has been asserted by some here at CF that the exposure of our bodies in the wrong context should be considered shameful, and therefore avoided.

For the purpose of this post and the responses that I hope it engenders, let's allow that assertion to be a given.

I want to ask people who believe that to be true to expand on the understanding and provide more tangible details about what that means.

So here are some specific questions that I'd like to ask on the topic:

1. Is the shame attached to specific body parts? If so, which parts? Is it different for men and women?
2. Do you believe that God endorses or is pleased with that shame?
3. Do humans have body parts that are displeasing to God?
4. What does God think about our bodies?
5. What attitude does God want US to have about our bodies?

GROUND RULES FOR THIS TOPIC...

• I do not intend to respond to anyone who answers to rebuff or refute. Your responses will stand on their own.
  • Caveat... I may offer follow-up questions to seek more clarity in stated perspectives.
• Others may respond if they want.
• You don't have to answer all of the questions. Pick and choose any or all, or skip the questions and just articulate your own perspective on the topic of body shame.
• Make only statements that clearly articulate what YOU believe... Do not assert what you think OTHERS believe in order to shoot it down.
• Do not disparage me for raising the topic or asking genuine questions... if anyone does so, it will be assumed that they don't actually have any answers to my questions.
• If you believe the questions to be slanted, misguided, or dishonest, you may explain why you think so and articulate how you believe the questions should be asked and/or ask questions of your own for others to answer instead (I will not be answering them, so don't address them to me)
• Do not demean ANYONE with your comments, questions, or responses.

If you're not agreeable to these "ground rules," please do not post anything.

The purpose of this post is to allow you to articulate your own perspective about the topic. State it as clearly as possible, and defend it as fully as you think it needs.

Go.

Generally speaking, shame is a function of our irascible desire self-reflected. When directed toward others, properly, it is righteous indignation at an injustice. When directed at self, it is shame for an unjust act. It is not specific to the body. That's a feature of cultural Xnty. We need to feel shame if our intellect does not freely assent to the good. If we engage in evil, shame is a good and God-given response.

Body/clothes shaming women is a cultural artifact of patriarchal cultures, with a sole telos of controlling women. If men could control their lust, they would see the beauty and goodness of what God created instead of an object to posses for their own pleasure.

 

[fhansen]

Actually I believe that the human form itself is created by God to elicit lust. Without lust we would never procreate. But lust is a lot like hunger. Hunger is natural but we should not let it lead to gluttony.

Some theologians have used the term as comparable to gluttony, lust being the word for the distorted use or abuse of the natural appetite. Lust can be equated to covetousness for or idolization of anything that attracts us IOW.

 

[fhansen]

I see no potential conflict. If God provided them with clothing, shouldn't they wear it?

And yet, that was after the Fall, after they had lost their original innocence. He hadn’t created them that way. Isn’t it rather absurd that we have laws against revealing what God created, that we’ve made obscene and evil and illegal for humans that which we perceive as fine and normal for animals? And that we just take for granted that this should be normal? I’m not saying we can go back at this point, pretending that we don’t have this basic shame, only that we should be aware that this isn’t the way things were meant to be in God’s design, and that it’s one more thing that points to our “fallenness”.

 

[zippy2006]

I just cannot see any basis to argue that covering their bodies was in any way the correct response in that moment.

Perhaps not at that moment, but I don't think this is the question that the OP is concerned with.

For example, I think it is shameful to have sexual intercourse with one's spouse in public, in front of others, and I think this would be true even if the Fall had never occurred. If this is correct then shame is not an evil, post-Fall reality.

 

[HTacianas]

This is an interesting idea. Is it a theologoumemnon on your part? I would be surprised if it did not have some basis in the Greek or Syrian fathers. Indeed this also makes a lot of sense of the Song of Solomon, which is the most erotic text in scripture.

I suppose it is a bit theologoumemnon-ish. I've found that if you ask yourself "why" a lot you'll stumble across answers to a lot of questions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... I can't wait to get my White Robe in Eternity!!!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If we are ashamed of our body part, then we are ashamed of what God has created.

Brene Brown is a shame researcher.

brene brown define shame - Google Search

www.google.com

Brené defines shame as the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging. We feel like something we've experienced, done, or failed to do makes us unworthy of connection.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And yet, that was after the Fall, after they had lost their original innocence. He hadn’t created them that way. Isn’t it rather absurd that we have laws against revealing what God created, that we’ve made obscene and evil and illegal for humans that which we perceive as fine and normal for animals? And that we just take for granted that this should be normal? I’m not saying we can go back at this point, pretending that we don’t have this basic shame, only that we should be aware that this isn’t the way things were meant to be in God’s design, and that it’s one more thing that points to our “fallenness”.

I'm not convinced. Christians are new creations in Christ. If we need no covering, then why do we wear robes in heaven? Our bodies are not the issue because we will have transformed bodies also. It's not possible to argue from silence, but it seems that Adam and Eve would have received a new covering once they had made the choice to eat from the tree of life. Until they made a choice, they had no covering.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not convinced. Christians are new creations in Christ. If we need no covering, then why do we wear robes in heaven? Our bodies are not the issue because we will have transformed bodies also. It's not possible to argue from silence, but it seems that Adam and Eve would have received a new covering once they had made the choice to eat from the tree of life. Until they made a choice, they had no covering.

IDK. Why would they need a covering? The rest of creation needs none. I don't think God made a mistake. I tend to think their innocence was superior to our "sophistication" , which is really just a pride-based shame IMO.

 

[zippy2006]

Either way, of course the tree wasn’t evil; it was probably symbolic of the choice laid before them anyway: obedience or disobedience.

If we attend to the text then the fruit of that tree, when eaten, provides one with knowledge of good and evil. I do not deny that eating of it constituted disobedience, but you do not seem to admit that it really did give them knowledge. The story may be more complex than you are recognizing.

Why would they need a covering? The rest of creation needs none. I don't think God made a mistake. I tend to think their innocence was superior to our "sophistication" , which is really just a pride-based shame IMO.

1. Adam and Eve ate of a tree of knowledge
2. They gained knowledge, including the knowledge that they were naked
3. God gave them clothes with which to cover themselves

The argument from many in this thread has been, "God said not to eat of the fruit, therefore clothes are evil." Or, "Clothing is shame-induced, and because shame is evil therefore clothes are evil."

 

[fhansen]

If we attend to the text then the fruit of that tree, when eaten, provides one with knowledge of good and evil. I do not deny that eating of it constituted disobedience, but you do not seem to admit that it really did give them knowledge. The story may be more complex than you are recognizing.

Ok...so are you saying that God made them evil, and then they recognized their evilness by disobeying Him? A bit odd, I would think, if so. God's embarrassed about His own creation? "Cover up! What's a matter you? Have you no shame?" Shame would've- and should've -been alien to an innocent being. I think this may be more complex than you are recognizing-or maybe simpler, in a way- but a story with a bit of an elusive character in any case.

I'm far from a biblical language expert but I do know that the Hebrew word for knowledge used here is "yada", which is often used for knowledge gained directly, by experience. For example, the word is used for conveying the sense of knowing another person carnally. So,
Adam & Eve, having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, immediately knew evil, their own separation from God being the first instance of this as all of creation is meant to be subjugated to its Creator. Alienation from God is the essence of the state known as "original sin". God knew them thoroughly, body and soul, and yet they felt the need to hide from Him, hide from their transparency, hide from the truth, hide from themselves. In fact, the church teaches that, as a result of the Fall, man was divided in some manner from God, from the rest of creation, from his fellow man, and from and within himself. Shame had entered the world. Why? Pride made them wish to be their own "gods".
"Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God". CCC 398

When they ate, and their eyes were opened, their "creatureliness", their non-godliness, was suddenly all too obvious in light of their newly adopted "sophistication". They now existed in a strange paradox that all humans still exist in now; wanting to be more than we are, resulting in shame of who we really are, not wholly comfortable in our own skins, with ourselves, not wholly truthful nor transparent about it. A conflicted walking contradiction is human nature. No longer innocent IOW, at least not until we come full circle, returning to God, now having embarked on a journey with our faith, a "journey to perfection" as it's been called, a journey to our purpose, to be "perfected in love" which causes justice, integrity, and obedience of God by its nature. It's the choice of good over evil, now that we've been exposed to both. This journey is to begin in this life, completed in the next. Here we continue to struggle against sin, against the anarchic family tradition initiated by Adam, against the pride that, by its nature opposes a childlike faith and trust and love of the creature for the Creator.

So the knowledge is the same that we all share in this world now, the knowledge of good, which was the norm before the Fall, since everything God created is good, but now in contrast, with evil, the evil/sin that results when man's will reigns supreme, alone, apart from God, when God is effectively out of the picture in man's moral life, no longer his God. We know good and evil daily in this life, within and outside of ourselves, everywhere.

Man already had a conscience before the Fall; the law was written in his heart by God. With the Fall man had ignored this law's most basic principle: revere and obey and heed your God. All other sins followed from that first one as man's morality had now been relativized, based on his own opinion, determined by himself. And sin flourished; Adam & Eve's own son Cain would soon slay his brother Abel. Murder wasn't even a thought in their minds prior to the Fall. Aquinas in his "Compendium of Theology":

CHAPTER 188 THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL​

This state enjoyed by man depended on the submission of the human will to God. That man might be accustomed from the very beginning to follow God’s will, God laid certain precepts on him. Man was permitted to eat of all the trees in Paradise, with one exception: he was forbidden under pain of death to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating of the fruit of this tree was prohibited, not because it was evil in itself, but that at least in this slight matter man might have some precept to observe for the sole reason that it was so commanded by God. Hence eating of the fruit of this tree was evil because it was forbidden. The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not because it had the power to cause knowledge, but because of the sequel: by eating of it man learned by experience the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience.

 

[zippy2006]

Ok...so are you saying that God made them evil, and then they recognized their evilness by disobeying Him?

No, not at all. You still seem to think that the tree was evil; that God made an evil tree and placed it in the center of the garden. See #21.

I'm far from a biblical language expert but I do know that the Hebrew word for knowledge used here is "yada", which is often used for knowledge gained directly, by experience. For example, the word is used for conveying the sense of knowing another person carnally. So, Adam & Eve, having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, immediately knew evil, their own separation from God being the first instance of this as all of creation is meant to be subjugated to its Creator.

Throughout Scripture "knowledge of good and evil" is a desirable thing. For example, this is precisely what Solomon asks for in 1 Kings 3:9, and what marks the child's coming of age in the famous passage of Isaiah 7:15. It was sought in the garden because it is desirable, and the story of Genesis 3 is not saying that knowledge of good and evil is evil or undesirable. The point is that it is something that requires maturation; for the state of innocence is not the state of maturity. Adam and Eve were innocent, not perfect or mature. They were intended to grow and, in time, be allowed to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (say the Fathers).

Aquinas in his "Compendium of Theology":

...Eating of the fruit of this tree was prohibited, not because it was evil in itself, but that at least in this slight matter man might have some precept to observe for the sole reason that it was so commanded by God...

I disagree with Aquinas, for this is a very strange reading. Aquinas is saying that God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructed Adam not to eat of the tree for no other reason than that Adam might have a precept-from-God to observe. This idea is strange in itself, but it also fails to attend to the text. The commandment does serve as a precept from God, and that is an important part of the story, but in Genesis 2:17 God explains to Adam why he cannot eat of that tree. Thus Aquinas' reason is not "the sole reason that it was so commanded by God."

The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not because it had the power to cause knowledge...
(Aquinas)

Aquinas again fails to respect the text. First, we are told that it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9, 17). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has the power to cause knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), just as the tree of life has the power to cause life (Genesis 3:22). In the story this is obvious, for "their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (v. 7), God infers that they have new knowledge (v. 11), and God recognizes that they have become like the divine, knowing good from evil (v. 22). It's actually hard to understand how someone could read the story and miss this, but popular Catholic tradition doesn't pay it much attention. So the text shows that Aquinas is mistaken when he claims that the tree did not have power to cause knowledge.

The point here is that the knowledge is not evil or false, and therefore neither are the clothes. The knowledge is premature, and attained by means of disobedience, and thus one could also argue that the clothing is premature, but there is no real argument for the idea that the clothing is evil. Obviously this literal sense bears a deeper and richer symbolism, but the literal sense remains accurate. The symbolism does not reverse the literal sense. For example, we could say that the clothing they received is different from the clothing (if any) that they would have received if they had not disobeyed (for the clothing they received is remedial and impromptu). Still, this is not an argument against clothing per se, just as the text is not an argument against knowledge of good and evil, per se.

 

[Aussie Pete]

IDK. Why would they need a covering? The rest of creation needs none. I don't think God made a mistake. I tend to think their innocence was superior to our "sophistication" , which is really just a pride-based shame IMO.

Children run around naked quite happily up until a certain age. We had trouble keeping our young son clothed. He's strip off as soon as he could, which was no fun when we were going out. Once he became self conscious, that ended. We did not tell him that going naked was wrong, just inconvenient. Flaunting nakedness is rebellion against God, who clothed Adam and Eve as soon as they left Eden.

"And you must not go up to My altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it." Exodus 20:26

 

[Aussie Pete]

No, not at all. You still seem to think that the tree was evil; that God made an evil tree and placed it in the center of the garden. See #21.


Throughout Scripture "knowledge of good and evil" is a desirable thing. For example, this is precisely what Solomon asks for in 1 Kings 3:9, and what marks the child's coming of age in the famous passage of Isaiah 7:15. It was sought in the garden because it is desirable, and the story of Genesis 3 is not saying that knowledge of good and evil is evil or undesirable. The point is that it is something that requires maturation; for the state of innocence is not the state of maturity. Adam and Eve were innocent, not perfect or mature. They were intended to grow and, in time, be allowed to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (say the Fathers).


I disagree with Aquinas, for this is a very strange reading. Aquinas is saying that God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructed Adam not to eat of the tree for no other reason than that Adam might have a precept-from-God to observe. This idea is strange in itself, but it also fails to attend to the text. The commandment does serve as a precept from God, and that is an important part of the story, but in Genesis 2:17 God explains to Adam why he cannot eat of that tree. Thus Aquinas' reason is not "the sole reason that it was so commanded by God."


Aquinas again fails to respect the text. First, we are told that it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9, 17). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has the power to cause knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), just as the tree of life has the power to cause life (Genesis 3:22). In the story this is obvious, for "their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (v. 7), God infers that they have new knowledge (v. 11), and God recognizes that they have become like the divine, knowing good from evil (v. 22). It's actually hard to understand how someone could read the story and miss this, but popular Catholic tradition doesn't pay it much attention. So the text shows that Aquinas is mistaken when he claims that the tree did not have power to cause knowledge.

The point here is that the knowledge is not evil or false, and therefore neither are the clothes. The knowledge is premature, and attained by means of disobedience, and thus one could also argue that the clothing is premature, but there is no real argument for the idea that the clothing is evil. Obviously this literal sense bears a deeper and richer symbolism, but the literal sense remains accurate. The symbolism does not reverse the literal sense. For example, we could say that the clothing they received is different from the clothing (if any) that they would have received if they had not disobeyed (for the clothing they received is remedial and impromptu). Still, this is not an argument against clothing per se, just as the text is not an argument against knowledge of good and evil, per se.

Adam and Eve were good but incomplete. They chose the wrong source to be completed. The whole world runs by the principle of good and evil. Look where it has got us.

 

[fhansen]

No, not at all. You still seem to think that the tree was evil; that God made an evil tree and placed it in the center of the garden. See #21.

Where did anything I wrote even hint at that?

I disagree with Aquinas, for this is a very strange reading. Aquinas is saying that God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructed Adam not to eat of the tree for no other reason than that Adam might have a precept-from-God to observe. This idea is strange in itself, but it also fails to attend to the text. The commandment does serve as a precept from God, and that is an important part of the story, but in Genesis 2:17 God explains to Adam why he cannot eat of that tree. Thus Aquinas' reason is not "the sole reason that it was so commanded by God."

The tree served simply to test their obedience.It wouldn’t matter what God had commanded, as long as it was good which it would necessarily be considering its source; the message is that disobedience of God is just plain wrong and harmful.

CCC 398 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”

No matter how you cut it, Father knew best. And He never commands anything that is impossible to obey, or that would be wrong to obey.

Throughout Scripture "knowledge of good and evil" is a desirable thing. For example, this is precisely what Solomon asks for in 1 Kings 3:9, and what marks the child's coming of age in the famous passage of Isaiah 7:15. It was sought in the garden because it is desirable, and the story of Genesis 3 is not saying that knowledge of good and evil is evil or undesirable. The point is that it is something that requires maturation; for the state of innocence is not the state of maturity. Adam and Eve were innocent, not perfect or mature. They were intended to grow and, in time, be allowed to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (say the Fathers).

There’s nothing inherently good about the knowledge of evil, because there’s nothing good about evil. Only foolishness is interested in it, only the unwise need to learn not to touch the hot stove. So they gained nothing from knowing evil other than to potentially learn to hate and shun it. That’s why we’re here now, to learn by experience and the help of grace, to choose the good over the evil which we now know, ultimately meaning to turn back fully to God-and to heeding Him. To gain wisdom IOW.

Aquinas again fails to respect the text. First, we are told that it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9, 17). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has the power to cause knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), just as the tree of life has the power to cause life (Genesis 3:22). In the story this is obvious, for "their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (v. 7), God infers that they have new knowledge (v. 11), and God recognizes that they have become like the divine, knowing good from evil (v. 22). It's actually hard to understand how someone could read the story and miss this, but popular Catholic tradition doesn't pay it much attention. So the text shows that Aquinas is mistaken when he claims that the tree did not have power to cause knowledge.

Actually I think yours is the common and popular, and, if I may say, less reasoned view. It still seems that you’re saying that God created them in an evil state, and that they therefore improved themselves by disobeying Him and developing shame. Of course they gained knowledge: the direct, visceral knowledge of evil, in contrast to good, by experience. Once one knows evil they have the knowledge of both, good and evil, ipso facto. Prior to that their was no distinction; everything was good. And, again, we all possess, we all live with, that knowledge now.

The point here is that the knowledge is not evil or false, and therefore neither are the clothes. The knowledge is premature, and attained by means of disobedience, and thus one could also argue that the clothing is premature, but there is no real argument for the idea that the clothing is evil. Obviously this literal sense bears a deeper and richer symbolism, but the literal sense remains accurate. The symbolism does not reverse the literal sense. For example, we could say that the clothing they received is different from the clothing (if any) that they would have received if they had not disobeyed (for the clothing they received is remedial and impromptu). Still, this is not an argument against clothing per se, just as the text is not an argument against knowledge of good and evil, per se.

I don’t believe that you’re interpreting it in the literal sense at all but just not seeing the obvious, in fact. And I think the definition of the word used for knowledge, for one thing, can help point us to that fact. The knowledge, itself, isn’t evil, and God knew He would be using it in our “education” or formation, in fact, now that they had gained it by their act. Their act remains foolish and destructive, but understandable nonetheless due simply to their inherent imperfection relative to God. But with that act of injustice they would also now be able to grow in justice as they struggled with and against evil and its lure, to finally come fool circle in choosing the good, alone, for ourselves. That’s what we should all be working on now. That’s our “job” here, with the help of revelation and grace. Then, after a long detour away from it, we can begin eating of the Tree of Life instead, as man should've to begin with.