Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Secundae·Q86. The stain of sin
Source context
- Theme
- ontological residue of sin upon the soul after the act
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Eastern Orthodox theology (hesychasm)The concept of passions as persistent spiritual defilements lodged in the soul after sinful acts shows cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's macula peccati as an abiding privation of spiritual luster.
- Vedantic karma doctrineThe Vedantic notion of samskara — subtle karmic impressions that remain on the subtle body after an action — shows cross-tradition congruence with the scholastic stain as a lasting relational disorder between the soul and its luminous principle.
Q86. The stain of sin
Article 1
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that sin causes no stain on the soul. For a higher nature cannot be defiled by contact with a lower nature: hence the sun's ray is not defiled by contact with tainted bodies, as Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v). Now the human soul is of a much higher nature than mutable things, to which it turns by sinning. Therefore it does not contract a stain from them by sinning.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccatum non causet aliquam maculam in anima. Natura enim superior non potest inquinari ex contactu naturæ inferioris; unde radius solaris non inquinatur per tactum corporum fætidorum, ut Augustinus dicit in libro Contra quinque hæreses, c. v, § 7, col. 1107, t. 8. Sed anima humana est multo superioris naturæ quam res commutabiles, ad quas peccando convertitur. Ergo ex eis maculam non contrahit peccando.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.2] Further, sin is chiefly in the will, as stated above (74, A1,2). Now the will is in the reason, as stated in De Anima iii, text. 42. But the reason or intellect is not stained by considering anything whatever; rather indeed is it perfected thereby. Therefore neither is the will stained by sin.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccatum est principaliter in voluntate, ut supra dictum est; voluntas autem est in ratione, ut dicitur in III De anima, text. 42. Sed ratio sive intellectus non maculatur ex consideratione quarum-cumque rerum, sed magis perficitur. Ergo nec voluntas ex peccato maculatur.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.3] Further, if sin causes a stain, this stain is either something positive, or a pure privation. If it be something positive, it can only be either a disposition or a habit: for it seems that nothing else can be caused by an act. But it is neither disposition nor habit: for it happens that a stain remains even after the removal of a disposition or habit; for instance, in a man who after committing a mortal sin of prodigality, is so changed as to fall into a sin of the opposite vice. Therefore the stain does not denote anything positive in the soul. Again, neither is it a pure privation. Because all sins agree on the part of aversion and privation of grace: and so it would follow that there is but one stain caused by all sins. Therefore the stain is not the effect of sin.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si peccatum maculam causat, aut macula illa est aliquid positive, aut est privatio pura. Si sit aliquid positive, non potest esse nisi dispositio vel habitus; nihil enim aliud videtur ex actu causari. Dispositio autem et habitus non est; contingit enim remota dispositione vel habitu, adhuc remanee maculam, ut patet in eo qui peccavit mortaliter prodigalitate, et postea transmutatur mortaliter peccando in habitum vitii oppositi. Non ergo macula ponit aliquid positive in anima. Similiter etiam nec est privatio pura, quia omnia peccata eveniunt ex parte aversionis et privationis gratiae. Sequeretur ergo quod omnium peccatorum esset una macula. Ergo macula non est effectus peccati. 1 Liber Adv. quinque hæreses, quem Lovanienses et Bellarminus legitimum Augustini fœtum agnoscebant, in editione Migne inter dubia numeratur et in append. rejicitur.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.sc] It was said to Solomon (Sirach 47:22): "Thou hast stained thy glory": and it is written (Ephesians 5:27): "That He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle": and in each case it is question of the stain of sin. Therefore a stain is the effect of sin.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli., xlvii, 22, Salomoni: Dedisti maculam in gloria tua; et Ephes., v, 27: Ut exhiberet sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, et utrobique loquitur de macula peccati. Ergo macula est effectus peccati.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.co] A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man's soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod macula proprie dicitur in corporalibus, quando aliquod corpus nitidum perdit suum nitorem ex contactu alterius corporis, sicut vestis, et aurum, et argentum, aut aliud hujusmodi. In rebus autem spiritualibus ad similitudinem hujus oportet maculam dici. Habet autem anima hominis duplicem nitorem: unum quidem ex refulgentia luminis naturalis rationis, per quam dirigitur in suis actibus; alium vero ex refulgentia divini luminis, scilicet sapientiæ et gratiae, per quam etiam homo perficitur ad bene et decenter agendum. Est autem quasi quidam animæ tactus, quando inhæret aliquibus rebus per amorem. Cum autem peccat, adhæret aliquibus rebus contra lumen rationis et divinæ legis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Unde ipsum detrimentum nitoris ex tali contactu proveniens macula animæ metaphorice vocatur.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.1] The soul is not defiled by inferior things, by their own power, as though they acted on the soul: on the contrary, the soul, by its own action, defiles itself, through cleaving to them inordinately, against the light of reason and of the Divine law.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod anima non inquinatur ex rebus inferioribus virtute earum, quasi agentibus eis in animam; sed magis e converso anima sua actione se inquinat, inordinate eis inhærendo contra lumen rationis et divinæ legis.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.2] The action of the intellect is accomplished by the intelligible thing being in the intellect, according to the mode of the intellect, so that the intellect is not defiled, but perfected, by them. On the other hand, the act of the will consists in a movement towards things themselves, so that love attaches the soul to the thing loved. Thus it is that the soul is stained, when it cleaves inordinately, according to Hosea 9:10: "They . . . became abominable as those things were which they loved."
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod actio intellectus perficitur secundum quod res intelligibles sunt in intellectu per modum ipsius intellectus, et ideo intellectus ex eis non inficitur sed magis perficitur. Sed actus voluntatis consistit in motu ad ipsas res, ita quod amor rei amatæ animam conglutinat; et ex hoc anima maculatur, quando inordinate inhæret, secundum illud Oseæ, 1x, 10: Facti sunt abominabiles, sicut ea quæ dilexerunt.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.3] The stain is neither something positive in the soul, nor does it denote a pure privation: it denotes a privation of the soul's brightness in relation to its cause, which is sin; wherefore diverse sins occasion diverse stains. It is like a shadow, which is the privation of light through the interposition of a body, and which varies according to the diversity of the interposed bodies.
[I-II.q.86.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod macula non est aliquid positive in anima, nec significat privationem solam, sed significat privationem quamdam nitoris animæ in ordine ad suam causam, quæ est peccatum: et ideo diversa peccata diversas maculas inducunt; Veteres theologi peccatum habituale vocabant maculam, macula tamen ex peccato actuali sequitur. et est simile de umbra, quæ est privatio luminis ex objecto alicujus corporis, et secundum diversitatem corporum objectorum diversificantur umbræ.
Article 2
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that the stain does not remain in the soul after the act of sin. For after an action, nothing remains in the soul except habit or disposition. But the stain is not a habit or disposition, as stated above (1, Objection 3). Therefore the stain does not remain in the soul after the act of sin.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod macula non maneat in anima post actum peccati. Nihil enim manet in anima post actum, nisi habitus vel dispositio. Sed macula non est habitus vel dispositio, ut supra habitum est. Ergo macula non manet in anima post actum peccati.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.2] Further, the stain is to the sin what the shadow is to the body, as stated above (1, ad 3). But the shadow does not remain when the body has passed by. Therefore the stain does not remain in the soul when the act of sin is past.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, hoc modo se habet macula ad peccatum, sicut umbra ad corpus, ut supra dictum est. Sed, transeunte corpore, non manet umbra. Ergo, et transeunte actu peccati, non manet macula.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.3] Further, every effect depends on its cause. Now the cause of the stain is the act of sin. Therefore when the act of sin is no longer there, neither is the stain in the soul.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, omnis effectus dependet ex sua causa; causa autem maculæ est actus peccati. Ergo, remoto actu peccati, non manet macula in anima.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.sc] It is written (Joshua 22:17): "Is it a small thing to you that you sinned with Beelphegor, and the stain of that crime remaineth in you [Vulgate: 'us'] to this day?"
[I-II.q.86.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Josue, xxii, 17: An parum est vobis, quia peccatis in Beelphegor, et usque in præsentem diem macula hujus sceleris in vobis permanet?
[I-II.q.86.a.2.co] The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated above (Article 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement. Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases, but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod macula peccati remanet in anima etiam transeunte actu peccati. Cujus ratio est, quia macula, sicut dictum est, importat quemdam defectum nitoris propter recessum a lumine rationis vel divinæ legis. Et ideo quamdiu homo manet extra hujusmodi lumen, manet in eo macula peccati; sed postquam redit ad lumen rationis, et ad lumen divinum, quod fit per gratiam, tunc macula cessat. Licet autem cesset actus peccati, quo homo discussit a lumine rationis vel legis divinæ, non tamen statim homo ad illud redit in quo fuerat; sed requiritur aliquis motus voluntatis contra-rius primo motui; sicut si aliquis sit distans alicui per aliquem motum, non statim ces- 1 Ita et alii codd.; in edit.: « actus. » Contra Lutherum dicentem quod ab actu peccati cessare est summa pœnitentia. Macula non est reatus pœnæ de quo infra, ut plures Scotistæ Scotum ad suum sensum detorquentes, et Durandus sante motu fit ei propinquus, sed oportet quod appropinquet rediens, per motum contrarium.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.1] Nothing positive remains in the soul after the act of sin, except the disposition or habit; but there does remain something private, viz. the privation of union with the Divine light.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod post actum peccati nihil positive remanet in anima, nisi dispositio vel habitus: remanet ta-men aliquid privative, scilicet privatio conjunctionis ad divinum lumen.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.2] After the interposed body has passed by, the transparent body remains in the same position and relation as regards the illuminating body, and so the shadow passes at once. But when the sin is past, the soul does not remain in the same relation to God: and so there is no comparison.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, transeunte obstaculo corporis, remanet corpus diapha-num in æquali propinquitate et habitudine ad corpus illuminans; et ideo statim umbra transit: sed, remoto actu peccati, non remanet anima in eadem habitudine ad Deum. Unde non est similis ratio.
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.3] The act of sin parts man from God, which parting causes the defect of brightness, just as local movement causes local parting. Wherefore, just as when movement ceases, local distance is not removed, so neither, when the act of sin ceases, is the stain removed.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[I-II.q.86.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod affectus peccati facit distantiam a Deo; quam quidem distantiam sequitur defectus nitoris hoc modo, sicut motus localem distantiam. Unde, sicut cessante motu locali, non tollitur distantia localis, ita nec cessante actu peccati, tollitur macula.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-secundae/q086.json