Question
71: On vices and sins in
themselves
71,1:
Terminology: Virtue is by essence a certain habit
by which one is disposed toward behaving in a way appropriate for
perfecting
his nature; hence, virtue is a certain sort of goodness
that is
directed toward good acts.
Vice
(vitium)
is
opposed
to virtue directly insofar as a vice is a habit by which one is
disposed
to behave in a way inappropriate for perfecting his nature; badness
(malitia)
is opposed to virtue because it is directly opposed to
the goodness
that virtue involves; and sin
(peccatum/culpa)
is opposed to virtue insofar as it is directly opposed to the good
act
toward which virtue is ordered.
71,2:
Vice is contrary to nature in the sense that by
a vice
one is disposed to act against that which agrees with and perfects
nature,
and hence because of vice one is subject to blame and censure. Since it
is the rational soul that constitutes certain animals as human beings,
vice in human beings is contrary to nature insofar as it is contrary to
the
order of reason.
Note ad
4: "The eternal law is related
to
the order of human
reason as a craft is related to what is produced by it. Thus vice and
sin
are contrary to the order of human reason for the same reason that they
are also contrary to the eternal law."
71,3:
Absolutely speaking, bad acts are worse than bad
habits (vices),
since actually doing evil is worse than being inclined to do evil.
However
(see ad 1),
it is also true that bad habits are more enduring
and
lead to more bad acts, and in this sense they are worse than bad
acts.
71,4:
Some virtues, viz., the acquired virtues, can
coexist with
an opposed sin, even a mortal sin. For (i) the presence of a habit does
not guarantee that one will use
the habit on a given occasion,
and
(ii) acquired habits are neither generated nor destroyed by a single
action.
However, mortal sin is directly contrary to charity, which is the root
of the theological virtues, and for this reason mortal sin is
incompatible
with charity and with all the other theological and infused virtues.
(Faith
and hope remain as inclinations, but not as virtues, strictly
speaking.)
The reason is that a mortal sin involves, either implicitly or
explicitly,
a contempt for God and a rejection of the redeeming love of Christ--and
the infused virtues and gifts are precisely the effects of that which
is
rejected.
71,5:
This article contains a discussion of sinful
omissions
and of whether such sins can occur without any act and, more
specifically,
without any sinful act. St. Thomas replies that they can sometimes
occur
without any act, either interior or exterior. For even though one can
explicitly
will a certain omission (e.g., willing not to go to church on Sunday),
this is not necessary. For instance, I might omit to go to church on
Sunday
without ever having so much as thought about going or not going. This
can
still be a sin even if it does not directly involve any act. However,
if
we look at the causes
of omissions, we will always find some
act
or acts which lead to the omission, even if the omission itself does
not
itself involve any act. Sometimes the causes of an omission might not
fall
within the will's power, and in such cases they render the omission
involuntary
and hence not a sin. However, when the causes are subject to the will,
then there must always be at least an interior act which is a cause of
the omission. Yet even here we have to draw a distinction. Sometimes
the
interior act in question leads directly to the omission itself, as when
I will not to go to church because going to church takes too much
effort.
Sometimes the causing act is only incidentally related to the omission,
as when I wish to play golf at a time at which I should be going to
church
or as when I stay up too late to watch a movie and oversleep--without
ever
having taken into account that I should go to church. In such cases we
should say that there is a sin without any act directly
involved
in it.
71,6:
This is an important article for helping us to
understand
the relation of good and evil to the ultimate end, on the one hand, and
to eternal and natural law, on the other. St. Thomas says that,
strictly
speaking, a sinful act is bad by virtue of not conforming to eternal
law
and (derivatively) by virtue of not conforming to the order of reason.
In answer to the objection that if that were so, then sins would be bad
because prohibited rather than the other way around, but that in fact
they
are bad primarily because they are not ordered to our ultimate end, he
replies that it is the eternal law that principally and primarily
orders
us toward our end. So we see here the coming together of an ethics
according
to which good and evil are defined in terms of conformity (or lack of
conformity)
to the ultimate end, and of an ethics according to which good and evil
are defined in terms of obedience (or disobedience) to law. On St.
Thomas's
view the two necessarily go together, since in creating human beings
God
necessarily legislates for them in such a way that obedience to the law
leads them to happiness as defined by their natures. This is
because
God is a loving legislator who cares for the common good--the common
good
of the universe as a whole (eternal law in general) and the common good
of human beings (eternal law as the source of natural law).
Question
72: On the distinction among sins
72,1:
Two things are involved in a sin: (i) a voluntary
act
which the sinner intends in such-and-such matter, and (ii) the act's
disorderedness,
which consists in its departure from God's law. (i) is per
se
and
directly intended, while (ii) is related per
accidens to the
sinner's
intention. That is, the sinner directly wills to do X,
which
is
a sin; so that there is always some X,
distinct from sinning,
which
is the direct object of the sinner's intention.
The distinction among
sins
thus follows the distinction among voluntary acts, and such acts are
distinct
from one another according to their objects.
Compare this with the pear tree
incident
in book 2 of Augustine's Confessions.
There Augustine worries that his motive in stealing the pears
was simply to do something sinful or lawless. This would not, as far as
I can tell, contradict the first point St. Thomas is making here, since
Augustine directly intended to steal the pears. However,
Augustine tries mightily to avoid the conclusion that what he really
intended in stealing the pears was to do something lawless. If that
were true or possible, then it seems that he would be directly
intending both the act of stealing and its lawlessness.
72,2:
"Every sin consists in the desire for some
mutable good
which is desired inordinately and, as a result, one takes a disordered
pleasure in such a good when it is possessed." So sins are divided into
carnal
and spiritual
according to the mutable goods desired and thus
according
to whether their possession gives mental (spiritual) pleasure (as with
sins of pride, envy, avarice, sloth, and anger) or corporeal pleasure
(as
with sins of lust and gluttony).
72,3:
Sins are not distinguished in species by their
efficient
or final causes, i.e., by the active principles (e.g., a passion) that
lead to them or by what the agent's non-proximate ends are. On the
other
hand, if we're trying to root out our sins, then whatever species they
might belong to, it's crucial to root out their causes. For instance,
if
I habitually steal in order not to have to work, then my sin is rooted
in sloth even though it is a sin of avarice. In virtue terms, it is a
sin
against justice that is rooted in a sin against temperance
72,4:
Sins can also be classified as sins against God,
against oneself,
and against one's neighbor,
depending
on
their per se
objects. Sins against God are opposed to the
theological
virtues; sins against oneself are opposed to the virtues of temperance
and fortitude; and sins against one's neighbor are opposed to the
virtue
of justice.
72,5:
Sins are not divided into species by the
degrees of guilt
and susceptibility to punishment (reatus
poenae) which
accompanies
them, i.e., by whether they are venial or mortal. Rather, this
distinction
is posterior to the division of sins according to species. The
difference
between venial and mortal sin is analogous to the difference between
sickness
and death. Thus, the disorderedness in a sin can consist in a total
aversion
from the ultimate end or instead in a deviation that does not
constitute
a total aversion. "Hence, nothing prevents its being the case that
mortal
and venial sins can be found within the same species of sin. For
instance,
the first movement in the genus of adultery is a venial sin; and an
idle
word, which is usually a venial sin, can also be a mortal
sin.
72,6:
Again, the difference between sins of
commission and sins
of omission follows upon the division of sins according to
species.
Note ad 2:
"Different negative and affirmative precepts had
to be proposed in God's law so that men might be introduced to virtue
gradually--first
by abstaining from evil, which we are led to by the negative precepts,
and then by doing good, which we are led to by the affirmative
precepts."
72,7-9:
The traditional distinction of sins of the
heart,
sins of the mouth, and sins of the deed is best construed as depicting
the evolving grades of a complete sin. The beginning of sin is in the
heart
as in a foundation (this involves three stages: the
thought, enjoying
the thought, consenting
to the thought); the second
grade
is
in the mouth, i.e., the verbal manifestation of what is in the heart;
the
third grade is the accomplishment of what is in the heart through the
act
or deed. Excess and defect are indicative of sins of different species
in that they are motivated by love (sins of excess) and hate (sins of
defect).
And as with acts in general, sometimes circumstances alter the species
of sin because they are included in the species of sin.
Question
73: The relation of sins to
one another
73,1:
It is not the case that all sins are connected,
since
some sins are contrary to others. Unlike the virtues, which reflect the
unity of a virtuous life lived according to a self-consistent rule of
reason
and of God's law, the vices are disintegrative. In ad
2, St.
Thomas
says some illuminating things about the relation of sin to
virtue:
"It is not the case that just any sinful act destroys the opposed
virtue.
For a venial sin does not destroy a virtue. And while a mortal sin
destroys
an infused virtue by turning away from God, no one act of sin, even
mortal
sin, destroys the habit of an acquired virtue. However, if the acts are
repeated up to the point that a contrary habit is generated, then the
habit
of the acquired virtue is destroyed. But once this habit is destroyed,
prudence is destroyed, since in acting against any virtue, a man acts
against
prudence. But no moral virtue can exist without prudence ... And so, as
a result, all the moral virtues are excluded as regards the perfect and
formal being of a virtue that such virtues have insofar as they
participate
in prudence. Still, there remain inclinations to the acts of the
virtues,
though such inclinations do not themselves have the character of a
virtue."
This is from
ad 3: "Love of God is
integrative,
since it reduces
a man's affective state from a multiplicity to a unity; and this is why
the virtues, which are caused by love of God, are connected. But love
of
self splits a man's affective state into diverse elements, since a man
loves himself by desiring for himself temporal goods, which are diverse
and varied; and this is why vices and sins, which are caused by love of
self, are not connected."
73,2-4:
It is not the case that all sins are equal. For
some privations,
e.g., sickness, admit of degrees, since deviations from the norm are
possible
that do not constitute a complete undermining of the relevant
principle--which
in the case of sickness is an appropriate ordering of the humors and
which
in the case of sin is the order of reason. And just as one sickness
(e.g.,
heart disease) is worse than another (say, a cold), so too one sin is
worse
than another to the extent that the principle that it attacks is prior
according to the order of reason. In general, the seriousness of a sin
varies with the gravity of its object or end (proximate and ultimate).
For example, sins with respect to the substance of man (e.g., homicide)
are more grave than sins with respect to exterior goods (e.g., theft),
and both are less grave than sins that are immediately opposed to God
(e.g.,
infidelity, blasphemy, etc.). Notice that every sin involves both a
turning
toward (conversio)
some mutable good and a turning away (aversio)
to some degree from the immutable good. It is the latter that makes
them
evil, whereas the degree of seriousness has to do with the object. So a
sin with respect to God is more serious, ceteris
paribus, than
a
sin against man, and the latter is more serious, ceteris
paribus,
than a sin with respect to exterior goods. And within each of these
three
orders, a sin is more or less serious to the extent that it has do with
something more or less central or important. Furthermore, speaking per
se, the greater a virtue is in
itself, the more serious are sins
against
that virtue. On the other hand, there is a sense in which the greater
the
virtue, the less serious are the sins opposed to it. For to the extent
that one's possession of a virtue is stronger or more intense, to that
extent the virtue helps keep one from committing even small sins
against
the virtue.
73,5-6:
Ceteris paribus,
carnal sins involve
less guilt
or blameworthiness than spiritual sins, and this for three reasons.
First,
the subject
of a carnal sin has more of the character of a
turning toward
a mutable good (sense pleasure), whereas the subject of a spiritual sin
has more of the character of a turning away from God; but the latter is
the basis of the guilt or blameworthiness that a sin carries with it.
Second,
the matter
(materia circa quam)
of a carnal sin is one's
own body, whereas the matter of a spiritual sin is God and one's
neighbor,
which are to be loved more than one's own body. Third, the
(prevolitional)
impulse toward carnal sin is greater than the impulse toward spiritual
sin; but there is less guilt involved in a sin to the extent that the
impulse
toward it is greater. This last point is important. There are two sorts
of causes of sin. The first, which is the per
se cause, is the
very
act of willing the sin, which has the sin as its fruit. So the more
intense
the willing to sin is, the graver the sin. The second are the causes of
sin exterior to the will. Some of these, like the object willed, induce
the will to sin with respect to the very nature of the will, e.g., the
end. And such exterior causes augment the sin; the worse the end, the
worse
the sin. Others incline the will to sin but in a way that is outside
its
nature. They do so by diminishing either (i) the judgment of reason
(e.g.,
ignorance, antecedent passions such as anger and concupiscence) or (ii)
the will's free movement (weakness, violence, fear).
73,7-10:
The remaining articles have to do with the
question
of how circumstances of various types affect the gravity of a sin.
Briefly,
St. Thomas argues that (i) circumstances can make a sin graver either
(a) by
changing the genus of the sin
(e.g., an act that would otherwise be
fornication becomes a graver sin, viz., adultery, when it is committed
with the spouse of another) or (b) by
adding another independent
dimension
of disorder to the sin (giving
money away not only when
one
ought not to but to someone
whom one ought not to) or (c) by
augmenting some already existent disorder
(stealing a lot
of
money from someone); that (ii) intended and/or foreseen harm, and
sometimes
even unintended and unforeseen harm, inflicted as a result of the
commission
of a sin, makes the sin more serious; that (iii) the status of the
person
against whom one sins may aggravate the sin (in light of his office or
of his virtue); that (iv) the status of the sinner himself may
aggravate
the sin--for instance, the more virtuous the person, the worse the sin
if the sin proceeds from deliberation rather than from a sudden impulse
that the person gives in to because of human weakness.
Interesting case:
A believer who commits what he knows
to be
a sin subject to a greater punishment commits a greater sin simply
because
he persists in what he knows to be a more serious offense against God,
whereas a non-believer might commit the same sin without knowing of the
punishment for it and hence without disdaining God as much.
Question
74: The subject of sin
74,1-2:
The will is the principal
subject of
every sin,
but is not the only
subject of sin. This is easy to see from
what
St. Thomas has earlier said about the relations among the will, the
intellect,
and the sentient appetite.
74,3-4:
The movements of sensuality (i.e., the
sentient appetite)
are subject to the control of reason, and so the sentient appetite can
be a subject of sin, though it cannot in itself be the subject of
mortal
sin. Of course, acts of the sentient appetite can dispose one to commit
a mortal sin, which can have only the rational faculties as its
subject.
The same holds for virtuous actions; they never belong to the sentient
appetite alone, since every act of a moral virtue is accompanied by an
act of prudence.
(Note St. Thomas's claim--in art. 3, ad 2--that even though, because
of the fomes peccati,
we are incapable of thwarting all the
inordinate
movements of the sentient appetite in this life, nonetheless, with
respect
to each such movement we are able to thwart that one. Compare: no pro
basketball
player is capable of making all his free throws throughout an entire
season,
but with respect to each such free throw, he is able to make that one.)
74,5-6:
Reason is the subject of sin in two ways: (i)
when it does
not know, or is mistaken about, a truth it should know, and (ii) when
it commands or does not restrain inordinate acts of the lower powers. Now
reason
sins not only by deliberately commanding inordinate movements of the
passions,
but also by deliberately failing to advert to or to repel inordinate
movements
of the passions, e.g., when it deliberately fails to advert to or repel
an illicit pleasure and allows it to be prolonged (delectatio
morosa).
74,7-10:
St. Thomas here discusses consent and, in so
doing,
introduces Augustine's distinction between higher and lower reason.
Higher
reason considers, judges, and rules in the light of eternal
reasons,
i.e., divine law, whereas lower reason considers, judges, and rules in
the light of temporal
reasons. In general, sinful consent is
attributed
to reason (either the higher reason or the lower reason). It can
sometimes
be the case that consent to pleasure is itself a mortal sin, as when
one
deliberately consents to the pleasure he feels while thinking about an
illicit object or act of a lower power which is itself mortally sinful.
On the other hand, higher reason can sin venially, and not mortally,
even
when it deliberately consents to a venial sin. For in doing so it does
not necessarily act out of contempt for the law of God.
Question
75: The causes of sin in general
75,1:
A sin is an inordinate act. As an act, it must
have one
or more per se
causes, just like any other act. But the more
interesting
question has to do with its defectiveness. And this defectiveness is
traced
back to the will's lack of conformity to right reason and to the law of
God. So the act is caused by the will (as well as by God as a
concurring
cause), and the fact that the act thus caused is defective is traced
back
to the will (and not to God)--the will, which, lacking the direction of
reason, intends some mutable good in preference to the immutable
Good.
75,2:
The immediate interior causes of sin are reason
and will;
the mediate interior causes are sentient apprehension (or imagination)
and appetite. Reason is a cause of sin to the extent that sin involves
the absence of an appropriate motive, viz., the rule of reason or of
divine
law; the will is a cause of sin insofar as it is the will which brings
a voluntary act to perfection. The sentient powers are a cause of sin
because
when a sensible good is proposed as desirable and the sentient appetite
is inclined toward it, reason sometimes ceases to consider the
appropriate
rule.
75,3:
Corresponding to the interior causes of sin
there are three
imaginable exterior causes of sin. The first would be an exterior cause
that directly moves the will; but only God can move the will from
within
and God cannot be a cause of sin. So no exterior agent causes a sin by
moving the will. The second sort of exterior cause moves reason through
persuasion of one sort or another. It is in this way that demons and
other
human beings can move us to sin. The third sort of exterior cause is
any
object that might move the sentient appetite. But in these two latter
cases
there is no necessary
connection between the action of the
causes
involved and the commission of the sin, since it is always in the
will's
power to resist the persuasion or the attractiveness of the
object.
75,4:
Sin can be a cause of sin in any of the four
categories
of cause:
Efficient cause:
Material cause:
By one sin I can acquire goods (e.g.,
money) which
put me in position for another sin that presupposes those goods (e.g.,
disputes over money).
Final/formal
cause: I might commit one sin
for the
sake of committing
another; e.g., I might render an unjust judgment for the sake of
committing
adultery. In such a case the adultery is, as it were, the final as well
as, in some sense, the formal cause of the unjust judgment.
Question
81: On the transmission of
original sin
81,1:
Interestingly, it is only in this tract on
original sin
that we come to realize how bad off our starting position is in
relation
to the attainment of happiness. (Question: Why didn't St. Thomas tell
us
this at the beginning, in the Treatise on Happiness?) The condition of
original sin (to be described below) is transmitted to the descendants
of Adam through their origin. For the very nature of a living human
being--that
which is transmitted to us in our generation from our parents--is
itself
fallen from the state of original justice. This sin or aberration is
imputed
to us not as personal sin, but insofar as we are "members" of Adam
through
our sharing in his life and nature through natural generation--just as
a sin committed with one's hand is imputed to the hand not in itself,
but
only insofar as it is a member of the human being who sins.
In
like
manner, the redemption and spiritual restoration of our nature is
imputed
to us not as personal merit, but only insofar as we are "members" of
Christ
through our sharing in his life and nature through spiritual
regeneration
(baptism). [Note how these doctrines offend our individualistic
sensitivities,
and also note the parallel between them.]
81,2-3:
The reason that the first sin of Adam, and
not his other
sins, is transmitted to his posterity is that the first sin, unlike the
others, has an effect on human nature itself as it was given by God to
Adam. For God gave Adam a nature which not only had its own intrinsic
principles
but also had the gift of grace called original justice, which God meant
to be transmitted to Adam's posterity through generation. This is why
we
talk of "fallen nature": it is human nature existing with its own
principles
but lacking a supernatural gift (with its preternatural overflow) by
which
it had been elevated and which God had intended to be transmitted to
Adam's
posterity through generation. And it is because this fallen nature is
transmitted
to us that we stand in need of the healing and redemption which is made
possible for us only through the merits of Christ. (Note, however, that
those who have been re-generated through baptism do not pass on a
re-generated
nature; for baptism is a spiritual re-generation which does not restore
all the gifts lost through Adam's sin--see below.)
81,4-5:
In yet another assault on our individualistic
proclivities,
St. Thomas asserts that if God were to miraculously create a human
being
who is not derived in origin from Adam, that human being would not
have a fallen nature. Also, St. Thomas holds that our nature would not
have been corrupted just by Eve's sin if Adam had not sinned. (Note ad
3 for a counter to those who
misunderstand part of the rationale
behind
St. Thomas's rejection of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of
God.)
Question
82: On the essence of original
sin
82,1-4:
Original sin is a "habit" in the sense in which
health
and sickness are habits, i.e., dispositions of a nature composed of
many
elements according to which one is related well or badly to a standard
set by the nature. The condition of original sin is had by us through
our origin
rather than through our actions.
So original sin has two
sides:
a. negative:
original sin is a privation, derived from the sin
of Adam, of the harmonious state of original
justice, in which
(i)
all of the passions were ruled by reason, (ii) intellect and will were
subject to God's law, and (iii) man was endowed with grace and
justified
in the sight of God, with (a) all the theological and moral virtues
along
with (b) freedom from sickness and death. (The total subjection of the
passions to reason and the freedom from sickness and death are called preternatural
gifts and are not restored through baptism; the indwelling of God
through
grace, along with the theological and infused virtues, are supernatural
gifts which are restored through baptism.)
b. positive:
as a result of this privation of
original justice,
which had kept the powers of the soul ordered in their movements, all
the
passions and powers of the soul are left free, as it were, to go their
own way, resulting in the "dis-integration" or "dis-ordering" of the
powers
of the soul. The fact that the particular effects may vary in strength
from person to person has to do with the particular "matter" informed
by
the soul.
In summary, original sin is formally
the absence of original
justice
caused by the turning away of the will from God; this lack of original
justice results materially
in the disordering of the powers of
the
soul--a disordering that can be given the general name of concupiscence.
For more on the effects
of original sin on the powers of the
soul, see
85,3: "Through original justice reason perfectly controlled the lower
powers
of the soul, and reason itself was perfected by God as subject to Him.
But this original justice was lost through the sin of the first parent
... And so all the powers of the soul remain in some way destitute of
the
proper order by which they are naturally ordered to virtue--and this
destitution
itself is called the wounding
of the nature. Now there are four
powers of the soul that can be the subject of virtues ... viz., reason,
in which prudence resides; the will,
in which justice resides;
the irascible
part, in which fortitude
resides; and the concupiscible
part,
in which temperance resides. Insofar as reason is stripped of its own
ordering
toward truth, there is the wound of ignorance;
insofar as the
will
is stripped of its ordering toward the good, there is the wound of malice;
insofar as the irascible part is stripped of its ordering toward the
arduous,
there is the wound of weakness;
and insofar as the
concupiscible
part is stripped of its ordering toward the pleasurable as moderated by
reason, there is the wound of concupiscence."
Question
83: On the subject of original
sin
83,1-2:
Original sin has the soul as its immediate
subject,
since only the soul can bear the character of guilt or fault that
accompanies
original sin. Furthermore, it is the soul's essence, rather than the
powers
that emanate from that essence, that is the immediate subject of
original
sin, since original sin affects the very nature that is transmitted
from
Adam to his descendants. (Likewise, we will later (110,4) see that
habitual
grace has the essence of the soul, and not the powers, as its immediate
subject, since it effects a change in the very essence of the soul that
then redounds upon the soul's powers, which receive the infused
theological
and moral virtues.)
83,3:
Insofar as it affects the powers of the soul,
original
sin infects the will prior to the other powers, since among those
powers
the will has the first inclination toward sinning. And it especially
infects
the powers that contribute to generation, viz., the generative power,
the
concupiscible power, and the sense of touch.
Notes
on Questions 84-89:
Question 84:
Cupidity (or avarice) is the root
of all
sins, since (i) cupidity in the broad sense includes any disordered
inclination
toward a conversion
to corruptible goods, thus serving as the
"root"
which furnishes nourishment for the "tree" of sin; and since (ii)
cupidity
in the narrow sense (desire for wealth) is the "root" which supplies
the
material wherewithal by which the "tree" of sin might
flourish.
Pride
(superbia),
on the other hand is the beginning
of all
sins,
since (i) pride in the broad sense, as an inclination toward contempt
of
God, is the source of the aversion
by which we turn away from
God
and subjection to his law, whereas (ii) pride in the narrow sense of an
inordinate desire for one's own excellence serves as the ultimate
motive
or end in the order of intention for inordinate appetites which are
"fed"
or facilitated by wealth.
The seven capital
sins (vainglory, gluttony, lust,
avarice, sloth,
envy, and anger) are principles of other sins and are "directive of and
conducive to" other sins in the sense that they provide ends to which
other
sins are means. St. Thomas orders them according to the goods they are
turned toward and the evils they flee from:
Good
to be pursued: |
Sin
|
Goods of
soul: Praiseworthiness
|
Vainglory (inanis
gloria)
|
Goods of
body: Conservation of body
|
Gluttony (gula)
|
Goods of
body: Conservation of species
|
Lust (luxuria)
|
External
goods: Wealth
|
Greed (avaritia)
|
Evil
to be avoided: |
|
Hard work to
get intellectual or spiritual goods
|
Sloth (acedia)
|
Good of
another perceived as evil for oneself
|
Envy (invidia)
|
Another's
good perceived as evil for oneself
because of an urge
for vengeance
|
Anger (ira)
|
Question
85: What are the effects of sin?
(See 109,7
for summary.)
First of all, sin diminishes
the goodness of the nature (corruptio
boni naturae) of the sinner in
the sense that it diminishes our
natural
inclination toward virtue; and it does this by posing impediments to
the
fulfillment of that inclination. So the inclination itself is always
there,
but because of sin it becomes harder and harder for that inclination to
achieve its end. In particular sin intensifies the wounds of
nature
that begin with original sin: (i) intellect: ignorance;
(ii)
will: malice;
(iii) irascible appetite: weakness;
(iv)
concupiscible appetite: concupiscence.
These wounds
remain
to certain degrees even in the wake of forgiveness.
Question
86: The second effect of sin is
the blemish
or stain
of sin (macula
peccati), which darkens the
brightness (nitor)
of both the light of natural reason and the divine light of wisdom and
grace. When we love something ordinately, the contact our soul has with
that thing (or person) brightens it, as it were. By contrast,
when
we love something inordinately--that is, contrary to the light of
reason,
wisdom, and faith--the contact our soul has with that thing (or person)
darkens or blemishes the soul. (Sometimes olfactory metaphors
are
used here, as when spiritual writers talk of the "good odor" of
sanctity.)
Thus one who is in the state of mortal sin is a child of darkness. The
stain or blemish of sin remains until the will, by a contrary motion
prompted
by actual grace, reverts through grace to the light of reason and of
the
divine law. Thus, when a sin is forgiven, it is this blemish
that
is removed.
An important corollary
is this: As long as the stain
of sin remains,
the sinner is cleaving inordinately to mutable goods and thus his
desire
is to have those things. In this state he does not desire
union
with
God. This is the key to understanding eternal
punishment.
The
reprobate do not want the punishment that is due sin, but neither do
they
want to come face to face with infinite goodness. Just the
opposite,
they abhor the light of glory and with it clear witnesses of that
light.
This helps to explain the depth of the hatred Jesus' enemies had for
him.
Question
87: A third effect of sin is the
sinner's being
deserving
of punishment (reatus
poenae). All sin, whether mortal
or
venial,
incurs this punishability, since all sin causes an imbalance (or,
alternatively,
a dent) in the order of reason, or the order of human governance, or
the
order of divine rule; and it is only through punishment that this order
is restored. As long as the blemish of sin (in the case of mortal sin)
remains, the punishment as such is in every way contrary to the
sinner's
will and has the full character of punishment. Note that
(art. 2)
sin itself can be the punishment for sin, given that by withdrawing his
grace God allows us to be "given up to our own
desires."
If the sin is only
venial, or if the blemish of sin has been
removed
through the mortal sinner's repentance, then the punishment is
"satisfying
punishment" (poena satisfactoria),
which the sinner freely takes
upon himself. Notice that such satisfying punishment can also be taken
upon oneself for the sins of others. Indeed, this is precisely the
nature
of Christ's "punishment".
Questions 88-89:
A venial sin is reparable internally
(like
a sickness which the body itself repairs), because it does not
undermine
the first principle of moral and spiritual life, which is an ordering
to
the true ultimate end. A mortal sin is, by contrast, irreparable
internally.
Only God by his grace can offer hope for a remedy. In De
Malo
7,1
St. Thomas compares mortal sin to a terminal disease and venial sin to
a disease that is not life threatening and which can be overcome by the
body's life-principle. If we have time I will say more about this
article
from the De Malo.
|