Jules Michelet

“We must examine and penetrate the full meaning of the faith, for which we are combating … There is no such thing as original sin. Every child is born innocent and is not marked beforehand by the sin of Adam. That impious, barbarous myth is disappearing. In its place, justice and humanity stand forth. Accordingly, two principles are now face to face; the Christian principle and the principle of 1789. There is no possibility of reconciliation between them. Odd and even members will never agree, neither will justice and injustice, so in the same way 1789 and the heritage of original sin will be ever opposed to each other … Education then will be completely different according as it takes as its starting point the old or the new principle.”

                                —- Nos Fils, Jules Michelet (1798-1874)

— Comments —

Vicky writes:

Heresy!

Laura writes:

Actually, he is not a heretic, but a true believer. But it is Michelet who holds to the barbarous myth. He clearly took civilization for granted. He didn’t experience true barbarism. He left that for us.

I like that portrait of him because it so vividly depicts his arrogance.

Michael S. writes:

Vicky might be right. The Code of Canon Law defines heresy thus: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (Can. 751). If Michelet was baptized, then his denial of the doctrine of Original Sin constitutes heresy.

If he wasn’t baptized, then he was merely wrong.

In any event, we can be sure that he is no longer under any illusions about anything.

Laura writes:

I don’t think it is possible to be a heretic and an apostate at the same time.

Michael S. writes:

You wrote:

“I don’t think it is possible to be a heretic and an apostate at the same time.”

Good point — just like it’s not possible to be injured and dead at the same time. Apostasy is much worse.

Please follow and like us: