|
Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For
original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states
(De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a
privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin
is not a habit.
Objection 2: Further, actual sin has the nature of fault more than
original sin, in so far as it is more voluntary. Now the habit of
actual sin has not the nature of a fault, else it would follow that a
man while asleep, would be guilty of sin. Therefore no original habit
has the nature of a fault.
Objection 3: Further, in wickedness act always precedes habit,
because evil habits are not infused, but acquired. Now original sin
is not preceded by an act. Therefore original sin is not a habit.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of
infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account
of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence
though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of
habit. Therefore original sin is a habit.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 49, Article 4;
Question 50, Article 1), habit is twofold. The first is a
habit whereby power is inclined to an act: thus science and virtue are
called habits. In this way original sin is not a habit. The second
kind of habit is the disposition of a complex nature, whereby that
nature is well or ill disposed to something, chiefly when such a
disposition has become like a second nature, as in the case of sickness
or health. In this sense original sin is a habit. For it is an
inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony
which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an
inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of
that equilibrium which is essential to health. Hence it is that
original sin is called the "languor of nature" [Augustine, In
Ps. 118, serm. iii].
Reply to Objection 1: As bodily sickness is partly a privation, in
so far as it denotes the destruction of the equilibrium of health, and
partly something positive, viz. the very humors that are inordinately
disposed, so too original sin denotes the privation of original
justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of
the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but a corrupt
habit.
Reply to Objection 2: Actual sin is an inordinateness of an act:
whereas original sin, being the sin of nature, is an inordinate
disposition of nature, and has the character of fault through being
transmitted from our first parent, as stated above (Question 81,
Article 1). Now this inordinate disposition of nature is a kind of
habit, whereas the inordinate disposition of an act is not: and for
this reason original sin can be a habit, whereas actual sin cannot.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection considers the habit which
inclines a power to an act: but original sin is not this kind of
habit. Nevertheless a certain inclination to an inordinate act does
follow from original sin, not directly, but indirectly, viz. by the
removal of the obstacle, i.e. original justice, which hindered
inordinate movements: just as an inclination to inordinate bodily
movements results indirectly from bodily sickness. Nor is it necessary
to says that original sin is a habit "infused," or a habit
"acquired" (except by the act of our first parent, but not by our
own act): but it is a habit "inborn" due to our corrupt origin.
|
|