Chapter XLV. The fatt or man

De Re ee ee i i i i ee ee ee ae i a te tt DD, te

First ARTICLE

THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS

State of the question. We suppose that a sin is a defection from the order to a right end, something contrary to the rule of reason, of nature, and the eternal law." Sin, however, is not predicated univocally of mortal and venial sin; mortal sin turns away from the final end; venial sin maintains the order to the final end but turns to means that are not ordered to the end.” Besides this, sin can be considered either in act or in habit. In the latter sense it is a disordered habit remaining in the soul until the sin is remitted. Thus after an actual mortal sin a man remains turned away from his final end. Hence habitual mortal sin is a state of sin consisting in the privation of sanctifying grace caused by a gravely culpable turning to creatures.

Adam’s sin and its consequences for the human race are denied by the rationalists and liberal Protestants, according to whom the biblical narrative of Adam’s Fall is merely allegorical and mythical. The rationalists object because of the disproportion between the eating of the forbidden fruit and the penalty inflicted, as described in the Book of Genesis.

The Catholic doctrine was defined by the Council of Trent: “If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and by the offense of such transgression incurred the anger and indignation of¹

God, and therefore death, with which God had threatened him, and with death captivity under the power of him who from then on held the empire of death, that is, the devil, and that the whole Adam by the offense of this transgression was changed for the worse in body and soul, let him be anathema.” ®

With regard to Adam’s sin the Biblical Commission teaches that the literal historical sense of Genesis cannot be doubted, especially with regard to the facts narrated in those chapters “which refer to the foundations of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the commandment given by God to man to test his obedience, the transgression of that divine commandment with the persuasion of the devil under the guise of a serpent, the eviction of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence, and the promise of the future Redeemer.” *

Sacred Scripture affirms the existence of this grave commandment and its violation: “And He commanded him, saying: . . . but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. .. . And the woman . . . took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” 5

From these words it is clear that our first parents sinned gravely, because of the purpose of the commandment, namely, the testing of their obedience, because of the grave punishment, namely, the loss of grace and their privileges, because of the consequences of the sin for the human race, and because of the perfection of this first state in which it was most easy to avoid sin.

The gravity of this sin is asserted in other places in Scripture: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die”; ê “But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world”; ? “For as by the

8 Denz., no. 788; cf. Dict. théol. cath., “Péché originel, dans Ecriture, chez les Pères et les théologiens. Les affirmations de l'Eglise en face du naturalisme contemporain,” col. 275-606; J. B. Frey, “L'état originel et la chute de l'homme daprès les juives au temps de Jésus-Christ,” in Revue de Sc. phil. et théol. (1911), pp. 507-45; F. Prat, La théol. de S. Paul (7th ed.), pp. 252-64; M. J. Lagrange, Ep. aux Rom. (1916), pp. 104-13.

disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.” 8

The Fathers, in explaining these texts, commonly assert that when our first parents committed this grave sin they lost their pristine justice, that death is the effect of Adam’s sin, that by his sin Adam lost the preternatural gifts but retained free will, and that Adam’s sin passed on to all men.®

Theological proof. St. Thomas proves that the sin of our first parents was the sin of pride, because they inordinately desired to be like God in the knowledge of good and evil and wished to govern themselves by reason alone instead of obeying the divine commandments received by faith.*® Thus disobedience arises from pride. And although this sin was not more grave than all others according to species, “it took on the greatest gravity because of the perfection of the state of the persons who committed the sin.” ** Thus the Scriptures say frequently that “pride is the beginning of all sin.” 1°

St. Thomas points out in the same place that at that time the sensitive appetite was completely subjected to the reason and the will. Therefore this inordination could have its beginning only in the will, by an inordinate desire of one’s own excellence. At the same time there was in Eve curiosity and disloyalty and in Adam an inordinate love for his wife. Hence, as St. Thomas says, the eating of the forbidden fruit was entirely secondary, and therefore the objection of the rationalists about the disproportion between the sin and the punishment is without basis.

It is commonly admitted that our first parents obtained salvation by penance, according to the words: “She (wisdom) preserved him, that was first formed by God the father of the world, when he was created alone. And she brought him out of his sin, and gave him power to govern all things.” 1° Indeed, the Greek Church celebrates the feast of Adam and Eve on the Sunday before Christmas.

® Cf. Rouet de Journel, op. cit., Index theol., nos. 298-302, for many passages from the Latin and Greek Fathers; also following article on the existence of original sin in Adam’s posterity.

11 [bid., a.3; cf. Bossuet, Elévations sur les mystères, 6° semaine, 5° élévation.

THE EXISTENCE OF ORIGINAL SIN AND ITS EFFECTS ON ADAM’S POSTERITY

State of the question. Those who attempt to explain all the evils of this life as the effects of an evil principle, like the Gnostics and Manichaeans, indirectly deny the existence of original sin. In early times Theodore of Mopsuestia, Rufinus, and the Pelagians directly denied original sin; in the Middle Ages, Abelard and the Albigenses took the same position; in modern times the Socinians, the Unitarians, and the liberal Protestants also denied original sin, teaching that Adam injured only himself and not the entire human race, except inasmuch as he gave a bad example. The rationalists and pantheists deny original sin a fortiori as something absurd. The Modernists say that the doctrine about original sin is merely a theory invented by St. Augustine.

Luther and the early Protestants, on the other hand, exaggerated the consequences of original sin when they said that “free will is merely a name, and when man does what he wishes he sins mortally.” 14

The Catholic doctrine is stated by the Council of Trent: “If anyone shall say that by his transgression Adam injured only himself and not his progeny, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God and which he lost, was lost only for himself and not also for us; or that the guilt of that sin of disobedience transmitted merely death and the punishments of the body to the human race but not the sin, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle, who said, ‘By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’ ” 15

Morcover it has been defined that original sin is transmitted not by imitation but by propagation or generation from the seed of Adam; "* that it is a true sin, bringing with it the privation of sancti-

14 Denz., no. 776; cf. Council of Trent, Denz., no. 815; for Baius’ teaching, ibid., no. 1065; for Jansenism, ibid., no. 1298.

13 Denz, no. 789; Rom. 5:12; cf. Card. Billot, De personali et originali peccato (4th ed., 1910), pp. 160 ff.

fying grace and the gift of integrity," that it is proper to each individual,'* although it is not personal,’® that it is found in infants,?° in Christians as well as infidels,”* that it is voluntary, not by the habitual will of the infant,”* but by reason of its origin from the will of the first man, the head of the human race,”* that it differs from actual sin by reason of the consent,” and by reason of the penalty, which in the case of original sin is only the lack of the vision of God,” but in a manner different from that in the other damned souls,”® since nonbaptized infants are indeed condemned (to the penalty of loss) but do not actually hate God,” nor do they suffer the punishment of fire.”* Original sin is remitted in the baptism of regeneration,”® which must be received at least in desire.®°

This doctrine may be summed up as follows: All men naturally born of Adam, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by their conception contract some sin, which is correctly called original sin or “the sin of nature,” and which brings with it the privation of sanctifying grace and the gift of integrity. Prior to the Council of Trent, this doctrine was formulated in the Council of Milevum (416) ** and the Second Council of Orange.*”

Sacred Scripture. The testimony is found as early as the beginning of the Old Testament and more explicitly in the New Testament. From the Book of Genesis it is clear that the fall of our first parents injured all their posterity; all men lost the friendship of God, the gifts of immortality and immunity from pain and concupiscence. Besides, the promise of the Redemption included all of Adam’s posterity and therefore presupposed that all men had fallen in their first

parents.®® The words, “Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed ?” ** have been understood in Jewish and Christian tradition as referring to the sin contracted in conception. The words, “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did my mother conceive me,” ** without the aid of tradition do not prove the existence of original sin, because it may be said that they refer to concupiscence, which, according to the Council of Trent, may be called sin in an improper sense.*°

The entire Old Testament announces the promised Redeemer and thus supposes the fall of the human race. We read, “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die,” ” since in some way the sin of our first parents came down to us. Finally, according to the Fathers, circumcision remitted original sin.*

This doctrine is more explicitly revealed in the New Testament. Of Christ it is said, “For He shall save His people from their sins,” °°? and “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.” ° Christ said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” ' No one is able to be spiritually reborn unless he has been spiritually dead by a common habitual sin, because infants are not capable of actual sin. “We were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest,’ ** that is, from birth, and therefore not by actual sin but by a sin contracted in conception. This is the sense in which many understand this text.

88 Gen. 17:14; Rom. 4:11; cf. Summa theol., Mla, q.70; Dict. théol. cath., art., “Circumicision.” St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XVI, chap. 27. Many modern exegetes see in circumcision only a sign of a compact or of friendship between God and Israel. But we read in the Scriptures, Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith .. . ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being circumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice” (Rom, 4:11). Thus, as St. Thomas says, “grace was conferred in circumcision, not by virtue of circumcision, but by virtue of the passion of Christ, whose sign was circumcision” (Summa theol., Hla, q.70, a.4).

+2 Cf. St. Thomas, Commentarium in Ep. ad Ephesios, 2:3.

43 Cf. St. Thomas, Commentarium in Ep. ad Romanos, 5:12.

The doctrine of original sin is more explicitly expressed by St. Paul: «c . . . .

By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom (or because) all have sinned”; ** “For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.” ® As St. Augustine explained against the Pelagians, St. Paul is here affirming that all men have died because all have sinned through Adam or in him, just as all are vivified in Christ. This sin is truly a sin and not merely that concupiscence which remains in the baptized, because it is opposed to justice and grace and leads “unto condemnation.” ° St. Paul is not speaking of actual sin, because this sin is also “in them who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.” ** Hence it is a sin committed by Adam alone, the head of the human race, a sin which passed on to all his posterity not by imitation but by propagation as the Council of Trent declared. Here we see the parallel between Christ and Adam, who as the head of the human race was the “form of the future.” *°

Objection. We read, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” °°

Reply. This refers to the punishment due a father, which should not be inflicted on an innocent son, while original sin is transmitted to us and is in each of us together with the privation of the preternatural gifts of nature.

Tradition. During the first four centuries, before the rise of Pelagianism, the belief in original sin was expressed by the Church’s universal practice of baptizing infants for the remission of sin and to drive out the devil; hence the exorcisms in baptism. De Journel quotes Hermas: “Before a man bore the name of the son of God, he was

44 According to the Latin Fathers and many Catholic doctors, the Greek is translated in quo, that is, in Adam; according to the Greek Fathers and some recent writers the rendering is eo quod or “because.” From the context the meaning is still that sin and death were transmitted to us through Adam, especially from v. 12 and v. 19. Cf. Bossuet, Défense de la tradition et des SS. Pères, VIL, chap. 12-20.

49 Cf. St. Thomas, Commentarium in Ep. ad Romanos, 5:12-20, for solution of the Pelagian objections; cf. also M. I. Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains (1916), pp. 104-13; F. Prat, La théologie de S. Paul, 1, 253 ft.; Dict. théol. cath., art. “Péché originel”;

dead; but when he received the seal, he cast off mortality and resumed life. The seal therefore is water; the dead descend into the water and ascend from it alive.” ! St. Irenaeus, also in the second century, said, “We have indeed offended God in the first Adam by not obeying His precept, but in the second Adam we were reconciled, being made obedient unto death.” 5? Similar testimony comes from St. Justin,” Theophilus of Antioch; ** in the third century from St. Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian; °° and in the fourth century from St. Basil, Didymus, St. Ambrose,° and St. John Chrysostom.** Mary is called the new Eve, who cooperated in the mystery of the Redemption as the first Eve cooperated in the fall of the human race.“

Lastly, St. Augustine defended the existence of original sin against Pelagianism, basing his arguments on Sacred Scripture and reason.” The Pelagian denial of original sin was condemned by the Councils of Carthage °° and Ephesus *? and by St. Celestine.®

Theological proof. Reason alone, from the miseries of this life, which affect even infants, cannot prove the existence of original sin, which remains a mystery in the proper sense, just as the elevation of the human race to the life of grace is a mystery, for God could have created man in the state of pure nature, in which he would not be immune from pain, death, ignorance, and concupiscence. These miseries, therefore, are only a probable sign of the existence of original sin, as St. Thomas said.**

After revelation, however, especially as it is expressed in the Epistle to the Romans,** St. Thomas was able to explain by an analogy how

58 Cf. Dict. théol. cath., art. “Le péché originel,” col. 353: “S. Jean Chrysostom proclame la necessité absolue du baptême pour avoir art à l'héritage céleste”; cf. De poenitentia, hom. I, 4, PL, XLIX, 282 ff.

°° Cf. Rouet de Journel, op. cit., no. 1899 (Contra Julianum, Il, chap. 10; VI, 67 £.; Contra Julianum op. imp., l, 27, 29, 49; II, 87, 119; V, 48, 64; VI, 36; De civitate Det, XXII, chap. 22, 1-3).

68 St. Thomas, Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 52. 6t Rom. 5:12-21 the first sin of our first parents is transmitted by origin to their posterity: “All men who are born of Adam can be regarded as one man inasmuch as they are one in nature, which they have received from their first parent, just as in society all the men of one community are considered one body, and the whole community is considered one man. ... Thus many men are derived from Adam as the several members of one body. The action of one bodily member, such as the hand, is not voluntary by the will of the hand but by the will of the soul which moves the member. . . . Thus also the inordination which is in this man generated from Adam is not voluntary by his will but by the will of the first parent who moves by the movement of generation all the men who are derived from him by origin. . . . Therefore original sin is not the sin of this particular person except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from the first parent. Hence it is called the sin of nature.” °

In his reply to the first difficulty, St. Thomas says, “The sin is derived by origin from the father to the son.”

In the reply to the second difficulty, he says: “Human nature is transmitted by virtue of the seed and together with it the infection of nature.” Thus Adam’s first sin (not his other sins) is passed on to this posterity, that is, to all men, who all therefore need redemption.* The force of this argument, as Cajetan explains, is in the analogical proportion between our will and our members on the one hand, and the will of Adam and other men, who are as it were his members, since they proceed by generation from him as from the head of human nature, which was once elevated and then despoiled of its supernatural gifts.

This is not a proof of the mystery by reason; that is impossible. But from this reasoning we have some insight into the mystery, according to the words of St. Paul to the Romans,” “both from an analogy of those things that we know naturally, and from the connection between the mysteries and their relation to man’s final end,” as the Vatican Council said. Thus light is thrown on the mystery of original sin from its relationship to the mystery of the Redemption, for God did not permit such a great offense except for the greater good

of the redemptive Incarnation, that is, in order that grace might superabound.*®

Some theologians, among them Salmeron, Toletus, Lugo, the school of Wiirzburg, teach that Adam’s sin was morally committed by his posterity through the moral inclusion of our wills in the will of our first parent. This has not been proved nor does it appear admissible. Original sin is not an act but a sinful state that directly affects the nature and only indirectly the person. Adam accepted for himself and his posterity holiness and justice as a gift to human nature, or as an accident to nature,” and he lost it for himself and for us, as the Council of Trent declared.”

Nor can it be admitted that a compact existed between God and Adam whereby his sin should be transmitted to his posterity. We have no indication that such a pact was made, nor was Adam’s consent necessary that his sin be transmitted to his posterity.

Adam, therefore, was not only the physical head of the human race by whom the life of the body was transmitted, but he was also the head of elevated nature.*? Under this aspect Adam was the moral head of the human race for, if he had not sinned, he would have communicated human nature together with the gifts of nature when he communicated natural life, as St. Thomas explains: “Children would have been born with grace... . But the grace would not have been transfused by virtue of the seed but it would have been conferred on a man as soon as he had a rational soul, just as the rational soul is infused by God as soon as the body is disposed to receive it.” 7’ Now, however, after Adam’s sin, original sin, which is opposed to that original justice, is called the sin of nature, and hence is transmitted by the parents to their children.™

71 Denz., no. 789; cf. Card. Billot, De peccato originali.

74 Ibid.; thus Adam was the head of elevated nature by some divine decree and therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would have transmitted to us original justice; if he sinned he would transmit to us the privation of this justice. It is not necessary that Adam should have consented to this decree. He knew the decree, and that was sufficient. His knowledge of moral and religious matters certainly included something as important as this both to himself and the whole human race. In the same way a man who loses his fortune and his hereditary title knows he is losing these things for himself and for his children. Hence original sin is voluntary only with regard to Adam’s will inasmuch as he was the head of elevated nature, and the sin

THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN

State of the question. The early Protestants said that original sin consists in a vehement concupiscence which extinguishes free will.” 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."®

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.” ‘ 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,"® and free will is not destroyed although it is weakened." 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, passes on to his posterity, not as a demerit, but as a consequence transmitted to nature. Under this aspect, therefore, original sin is the least of all sins because it has the least amount of voluntarium.

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,” ê 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.” **

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.* We see, therefore, a great difference between St. Augustine’s opinion and the Protestant error.”®

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.” ** “All men were, as it were, causally or materially in the seed of Adam.” *°

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.*°

St. Thomas asks the question: Whether original sin is concupis-

81. Cf. Acta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, VII, 517, 549.

82 Cf. St. Augustine, De nuptiis et conceptione, Bk. I, chap. 24, no. 27; chap. 26, no. 29; Journel, op. cit., nos. 1872 £., 1877; De peccat, meritis et remiss., II, chap. 28, no. 46; Journel, op. cit., no. 1726.

83 Cf. Dict. théol. cath., art. “Augustin,” cols. 2933, 2935 f.; Tixeront, Hist. dogm., Il, 463 ff.

84 St. Anselm, De conceptu virginali, chaps. 23, 27.

cence? 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.” 87

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.” ° 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.’ Later on (q. 85, a. 3) St.

87 Ibid. 88 St, Thomas, De malo, q.4, a.2. 89 Summa theol., Ia Iae, q.83, a.2 ad 4.

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.°°

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.” **

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.” 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.” **

Confirmation. 1. This traditional opinion is confirmed by the effect of baptism. As pointed out by Soto,”* original sin ought to consist in the privation of that which is restored by baptism, for this sin is

9° Cf, Dict. théol. cath., art. “Justice originelle.”

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.*®

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.°®

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.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ORIGINAL SIN °?

1. By original sin man was despoiled of the gratuitous gifts. This doctrine is of faith. Man lost sanctifying grace and the annexed gifts. This privation of grace as the habitual aversion from God and as

voluntary by the will of the head of the human race has the nature of guilt, but when it is inflicted by God it is a penalty.

Man lost also the four preternatural gifts that belong to integrity: immunity from death, from pain, from concupiscence, and from ignorance. He was reduced to the servitude of the devil and sin, from which he cannot be freed except by grace.

2. Man was wounded in his natural endowments, although he preserved his nature and the nature of his faculties. The Second Council of Orange °° and the Council of Trent ’°° say that “in body and soul man was changed for the worse”; and the Council of Trent adds that his “free will was weakened and deformed in its exercise.” ®

St. Thomas and theologians in general enumerate four wounds of the soul: “Inasmuch as reason was deprived of its order to truth we have the wound of ignorance; inasmuch as the will was deprived of the order to good we have the wound of malice; inasmuch as the irascible appetite was deprived of its order to the difficult we have the wound of weakness; inasmuch as concupiscence was deprived of the order to the delectable moderated by reason we have the wound of concupiscence.” 1°?

Doubt. Whether man is weaker to accomplish moral good of the natural order in the state of unredeemed fallen nature than he would have been in the state of pure nature. In other words, does the wounding of nature consist only in the loss of the gratuitous gifts, or does it include the weakening of the natural powers?

There are three principal opinions.

1. Some theologians hold that the powers of fallen man have been intrinsically reduced by his positive habit of being inclined to changeable goods. Such is the opinion of Henry of Ghent, Gabriel Biel, and certain ancient writers. The Jansenists held an exaggerated form of this opinion.

2. Others hold that man’s powers for moral good have in no way been diminished. This view is held by Suarez, Bellarmine, and by the theologians of the Society of Jesus, among them, Mazzella, Palmieri, and Pesch.

3. Others teach that the natural powers of fallen man have been

99 Denz., no. 174. 100 7bid., no. 788. 101 Jbid., no. 793. 102 Summa theol., Ia Uae, q.85, a.3.

weakened, not intrinsically, but extrinsically, because of the placing of an obstacle. This is the opinion of Thomists in general: Alvarez, Lemos, John of St. Thomas, Contenson, the Salmanticenses, Goudin, Billuart, Gonet in his Clypeus, in which he amended what he had taught earlier in his Manual, St. Alphonsus, and Tanquerey.

This last opinion seems to be more in accord with the doctrine of St. Thomas; the first opinion sins by excess, and the second by defect. St. Thomas proposes the question, whether sin diminishes the good of nature. He replies by explaining the words of Venerable Bede, “Man was despoiled of the gratuitous gifts and wounded in his natural powers.” “The good of nature,” St. Thomas says, “is threefold. First, the principles of nature, by which are constituted the nature itself and the properties caused by these principles, such as the powers of the soul. Secondly, because man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as we said above,’”® the inclination to virtue is itself a certain good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, which was given to the whole human race in the first man, can be called a good of nature.”

“The first good of nature is not lost nor is it diminished by sin. The third good of nature is completely lost by the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin.” ° Following this, St. Thomas treats of the four wounds “inflicted on all human nature by the sin of the first man.”

What is the extrinsic impediment which diminishes the powers of the soul? Many Thomists reply as follows: The faculties of the soul and its properties, like the essence of the soul itself, do not admit of reduction or increase, because they are entirely spiritual and therefore incorruptible and unalterable. They cannot therefore suffer intrinsic diminution. But in the state of fallen nature man is born habitually and directly averse to God his supernatural end, and indirectly averse to God his ultimate natural end, since every sin that is directly opposed to the supernatural law is indirectly opposed to the natural law, commanding us to obey God in everything. When Adam sinned, he turned all his posterity away from God the author of nature.

In the state of pure nature this aversion would not have existed because there had been no sin and man would have been born capable

of positive conversion to God and of aversion to God. Hence in the state of pure nature man would have been more capable of turning to God than the man who is born with an aversion to God. This aversion is a wounding of the will, which, as St. Thomas says, “is deprived of the order to good.” +° Thus we see how man’s free will is “weakened in its powers and inclined (to evil),” in the words of the Council of Trent. From this follows the wound of ignorance, particularly in the practical intellect, because everyone arrives at a practical judgment according to his inclination. If this inclination is not right, the intellect is inclined to error. Similarly the wounds of weakness and concupiscence follow in the sensitive appetite, because the higher faculties are not strong enough to direct the sensitive appetite as they should. Hence fallen man is compared to man in the state of pure nature not only as a stripped man to a naked man but as a wounded man to a healthy man.*°°

CONCLUSION

We are now better able to solve the objections against original sin.

1. Original sin is not repugnant to divine justice, because it is the privation of grace and the preternatural gifts, which were not owing to our nature. The just God could grant these gratuitous gifts to the human race on the condition that Adam, the head of elevated nature, should not sin and not forfeit these gratuitous gifts for himself and for us.

2. Original sin is not repugnant to God’s wisdom or goodness. As St. Thomas explains, “Nothing prohibits human nature from being brought to something higher after sin. God permits sin and evil that He may elicit something better. Hence it is said, ‘Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.’ ” ° And in the blessing of the paschal candle the Church chants, “O happy fault, that merited so great a Redeemer!”

God could not permit evil except for some greater good, but we cannot say a priori for what good God permitted original sin. After the Incarnation took place, however, it is sufficiently clear that God permitted the abundance of sin that grace might more abound. He permitted this universal evil in the human race so that He might give

105 Ibid. 106 Cf, Billuart, De gratia, diss. II, a.3. 107 Summa theol., Ula, q.1, a.3 ad 3.

us something better and more efficacious for salvation through the redemptive Incarnation. Christ, the head of the Church, infinitely excels Adam. The Blessed Virgin Mary is incomparably more perfect than Eve, and the Eucharistic sacrifice offered in every church immeasurably exceeds the divine worship offered in the terrestrial paradise.

Once the existence of original sin has been admitted, we can more easily explain the present condition of the human race. This doctrine solves the enigma of the coexistence in man of such great frailty and misery and such strong aspirations for the sublime. “Some signs appear,” says St. Thomas, “of original sin in the human race.” 1°: In Pascal’s words, “Without this mystery man is more incomprehensible than the mystery is to man.” *°® From experience, therefore, man is able to know his profound need for the Redemption that would elevate him again to the life of grace, which is the seed of eternal life.

108 St. Thomas, Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 52. 109 Cf. Pensées; Bossuct, Sermon pour la profession de Madame de la Vallière.

Footnotes

1. Cf. Summa theol., Ia, q.63, a. 1; Ia Iae, q.21, a.1, 2. 2 Cf. ibid., Ia Iae, q.88, a. 1 ad 1. 643 ↩