|
State of the question. The early Protestants said that
original sin consists in a vehement concupiscence which
extinguishes free will.[1592] Baius and the
Jansenists taught a similar doctrine with some
qualifications; according to them free will is so weakened
that it is necessarily drawn to earthly pleasures unless it
is strengthened by efficacious grace.[1593]
Shortly before the Council of Trent, Catharinus and
Albert Pighius, in their opposition to the Protestants
went to the extreme opposite. They said that original sin
was formally the actual sin of Adam extrinsically imputed
to his posterity, and that the privation of grace did not
belong to the essence of original sin but was simply the
penalty for original sin.
The Catholic doctrine was stated by the Council of
Trent, which defined as follows: "In baptism all that
has the true and proper nature of sin is taken away" and
"there remains in those baptized concupiscence....left
for the struggle..... The holy Synod declares that
this concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes called
sin, the Catholic Church has never understood to be
truly and properly a sin in those who are reborn, but that
it is from sin and inclines to sin. If anyone should
believe otherwise, let him be anathema."[1594]
Hence original sin does not consist in concupiscence,
which is called sin in an improper sense.
On the other hand, according to the Council of Trent,
original sin implies the privation of sanctifying grace
(hence it is remitted by baptism), death is a
consequence of original sin,[1595] and free will is
not destroyed although it is weakened.[1596] The
Council of Trent did not, however, determine in what
the essence of original sin consisted, nor did it condemn
the theory of Catharinus and Pighius. Their theory,
however, can hardly be reconciled with the Catholic
doctrine, for that which is extrinsically imputed cannot
be said to be properly in each individual as "transmitted
by propagation,"[1597] nor is it remitted by
baptism.
The Schema of the Vatican Council proscribes the
heretical doctrine of those "who have dared to say that
original sin is not truly and properly a sin in Adam's
posterity except in those individuals who have approved
this sin by their actual consent; or those who deny that
the privation of sanctifying grace, which our first parent
by sinning voluntarily lost for himself and his posterity,
belongs to the nature of original sin." This council
adopted the following canon: "If anyone shall say that
original sin is formally concupiscence itself or some
physical or substantial disease of human nature, and deny
that the privation of sanctifying grace belongs to the
nature of original sin, let him be
anathema."[1598]
Various opinions of the doctors. According to St.
Augustine, original sin consists in the disordered
habitual concupiscence found in the soul despoiled of grace
because of Adam's sin. According to him this
concupiscence has two things: the guilt of sin, which is
remitted by baptism, and the penalty of sin, which
remains in those who are baptized.[1599] We see,
therefore, a great difference between St. Augustine's
opinion and the Protestant error.[1600]
According to St. Anselm, original sin consists in the
privation of original justice or of the rectitude of the
will. "Because of his disobedience Adam was denuded of
proper justice and because of this all are children of
wrath."[1601] "All men were, as it were,
causally or materially in the seed of Adam."[1602]
Attempting to reconcile St. Augustine's opinion with
that of St. Anselm, St. Thomas held that original
sin is materially in concupiscence and that it is formally
the privation of original justice.[1603]
St. Thomas asks the question: Whether original sin is
concupiscence? His argument is as follows: "I reply by
saying that everything takes its species from its form.
It was said above (in the preceding article) that the
species of original sin is taken from its cause. Hence it
follows that what is formal in original sin is taken from
the cause of original sin. (This is the major of the
argument.) The causes of opposite things, however, are
opposite. The cause of original sin therefore must be
considered together with the cause of original justice."
"The whole ordination of original justice, however,
consists in the fact that the will of man is subject to
God. This subjection is found primarily and principally
in the will, whose function it is to move the other parts
to their end. Hence from the aversion of the will from
God there followed the inordination in all the other
powers of the soul. Hence the privation of that original
justice by which the will is subject to God is the formal
element in original sin, and every other inordination in
the powers of the soul is the material element in original
sin..... Thus original sin is materially in
concupiscence, and formally original sin consists in the
lack of original justice."[1604]
This argument may be stated briefly as follows: "The
formal constituent of a thing is the root of the other
things that pertain to it But the privation of original
justice which implies the subjection of the will to God is
the root of the inordination of the lower powers and of the
penalties that pertain to original sin. Thus when grace
was removed, the rebellion of the flesh followed.
Therefore the formal constituent of original sin is the
privation of original justice with its subjection of the
mind to God, and therefore it is essentially the death of
the soul, as the Second Council of Orange declared."
This argument is based on causality.
When St. Thomas says that "original sin is materially
in concupiscence," he most probably means to use the term
materially in an improper sense, as many commentators have
noted. Shortly before this he uses the expression "like
some kind of material." In his "De malo" he
says "quasi-material."[1605] Properly speaking,
the material is presupposed for the formal;
concupiscence, however, is not presupposed prior to the
privation of original justice but follows it as an effect;
as St. Thomas himself says, concupiscence "is a
consequence of original sin," inasmuch as the rebellion
of the flesh follows the termination of the will's
subjection to God.[1606] Later on (q. 85, a.
3) St. Thomas enumerates concupiscence as one of the
wounds or consequences of original sin.
From the fifteenth to the nineteenth century many
theologians held that the essence of original sin consisted
in the privation of sanctifying grace alone, and no more
mention was made of concupiscence as the quasi-material
element.
More recently Bittremieux and Kors held that the formal
element of original sin is the privation of original
justice or natural integrity, and that this privation
necessarily implies as a consequence the privation of
sanctifying grace since, as they say, original justice
originates from sanctifying grace. In the preceding
chapter we have examined this opinion and we have seen that
it is not in accord with St. Thomas' teaching in the
Theological Summa.
Hence for many Thomists the formal element of original
sin is the privation of sanctifying grace itself, which is
the intrinsic root and the intrinsic formal cause of
original justice. Such is the teaching of the
Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, Pegues, Hugon,
Billot, and Michel.[1607]
This more common teaching is truly in accord with the
passages from St. Thomas cited above, such as, "the
supernatural subjection of reason to God takes place
through grace gratum faciens."[1608]
Hence the formal element of original sin is the privation
of sanctifying grace, by which we are turned away from
God our supernatural end, and in us it is the effect of a
voluntary and culpable act committed by Adam our head.
Original sin, therefore, is not an act but a sinful
state which directly infects our nature and indirectly
infects the person. For in Adam grace was a gift to
nature, and Adam lost this grace for himself and for us.
Now there is transmitted to us a nature deprived of the
gift of grace which by the positive ordination of God
ought to be in us.[1609] All this is derived from
the principle explained earlier that Adam was the head of
an elevated nature and, if he had not sinned, "men would
be born with grace."[1610]
Confirmation. 1. This traditional opinion is confirmed
by the effect of baptism. As pointed out by
Soto,[1611] original sin ought to consist in the
privation of that which is restored by baptism, for this
sin is entirely remitted by baptism. But that which
baptism confers is sanctifying grace. Therefore original
sin consists formally in the privation of grace.
2. Original sin, called by the councils the "death of
the soul," belongs to the genus of habitual sin, not
actual sin. But habitual mortal sin consists in the
privation of sanctifying grace, and it is voluntary by the
will of the particular person. Therefore original sin
consists in the privation of the same grace, as voluntary
by the will of the head of the human race.
Corollaries. It should be remembered that guilt precedes
the penalty, and therefore the aforesaid privation of
nature is prior to us by the voluntary will of the head of
the human race, prior to the deprivation of the preserving
help of grace. For God deserts no one except those who
desert Him, nor does He take away original justice
except for the reason that Adam wished to deprive himself
and us of it.
In its formal aspect original sin is the habitual turning
away from the ultimate supernatural end as voluntary by the
will of the head of the human race. In its formal aspect
original sin cannot be more in one than in another because
the privation of original justice is equal in all.
Concupiscence, however, may be stronger in one than in
another because of the constitution of the
body.[1612]
Original sin is primarily in the essence of the soul,
rather than in the powers of the soul, because it is
transmitted by generation, and the terminus of generation
is man, whose soul is the substantial form. Sanctifying
grace, too, is in the essence of the soul as is also the
privation of sanctifying grace.[1613]
Original sin first infects the will, among the powers of
the soul, and then passes to the lower powers, which are
infected in special ways, inasmuch as original sin is
transmitted by generation.[1614]
|
|