|
Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not concupiscence.
For every sin is contrary to nature, according to Damascene (De
Fide Orth. ii, 4,30). But concupiscence is in accordance with
nature, since it is the proper act of the concupiscible faculty which
is a natural power. Therefore concupiscence is not original sin.
Objection 2: Further, through original sin "the passions of sins"
are in us, according to the Apostle (Rm. 7:5). Now there are
several other passions besides concupiscence, as stated above
(Question 23, Article 4). Therefore original sin is not
concupiscence any more than another passion.
Objection 3: Further, by original sin, all the parts of the soul
are disordered, as stated above (Article 2, Objection 3). But
the intellect is the highest of the soul's parts, as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. x, 7). Therefore original sin is ignorance rather
than concupiscence.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15):
"Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin."
I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it
has been stated (Article 2) that the species of original sin is
taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin
must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But
contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin
must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which
is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in
man's will being subject to God: which subjection, first and
chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other
parts to the end, as stated above (Question 9, Article 1), so
that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the
soul become inordinate. Accordingly the privation of original
justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal
element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul's
powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now
the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in
their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be
called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is
concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice,
formally.
Reply to Objection 1: Since, in man, the concupiscible power is
naturally governed by reason, the act of concupiscence is so far
natural to man, as it is in accord with the order of reason; while,
in so far as it trespasses beyond the bounds of reason, it is, for a
man, contrary to reason. Such is the concupiscence of original sin.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question 25, Article
1), all the irascible passions are reducible to concupiscible
passions, as holding the principle place: and of these, concupiscence
is the most impetuous in moving, and is felt most, as stated above
(Question 25, Article 2, ad 1). Therefore original sin is
ascribed to concupiscence, as being the chief passion, and as
including all the others, in a fashion.
Reply to Objection 3: As, in good things, the intellect and
reason stand first, so conversely in evil things, the lower part of
the soul is found to take precedence, for it clouds and draws the
reason, as stated above (Question 77, Articles 1,2; Question
80, Article 2). Hence original sin is called concupiscence
rather than ignorance, although ignorance is comprised among the
material defects of original sin.
|
|