Chapter — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Chapter I. On The Nature Of Sin
356. Sin is rightly and deservedly called the mystery of iniquity.1 For up to the present day theologians do not agree in what the formal constitutive element of sin consists. The best and most noble men have disputed on this matter, for example Ioannes a S. Thoma, Cajetan, Sylvius, Suarez, Billuart, Scheeben, Billot, etc., yet without being able to bring the desired clarity. Hence St. Anselm2 calls the perverse will of the sinner "a marvelous horror and a horrible marvel."
Diverse names are customarily imposed upon sin in Sacred Scripture. Thus, for example, it is called disobedience or prevarication and transgression of a divine precept,3 offense against God,4 contempt of God,5 injustice,6 iniquity,7 ingratitude toward God,8 impiety toward God,9 pride,10 foolishness,11 etc., etc. - Offense against God is perhaps the best among all the other denominations of sin, because it excellently expresses the nature and gravity of sin. For according to the common adage, honor must be measured on the part of the one honoring, but offense must be weighed on the part of the one offended. For the greater he is who is offended, the greater is the offense brought upon him. But God is of infinite majesty, and therefore an offense brought upon him puts on some true, although not absolute, infinity.12
2 Medit. 3 (Migne, Patr. lat. 158, 726).
3 Gen. 2, 16. Hebr. 2, 2.
4 Num. 17, 14. Eccli. 34, 20. Phil. 1, 10.
5 Lev. 26, 15.
6 Ps. 31, 5.
7 Gen. 4, 13.
8 Luc. 6, 35.
9 Ps. 31, 5.
10 Ps. 73, 23.
11 Sap. 10, 8.
12 Cf. on this matter Billuart, De pecc. diss. 8, a. 5.
357. Note. 1. In Sacred Scripture the name of sin occurs very often, but it is sometimes taken in a broader sense a) for the cause of sin, namely for concupiscence. Thus St. Paul says: "Now I do not work that, but the sin which dwells in me."13 b) For the victim which is offered for the expiation of sin. Thus it is said of Christ: "Him who had not known sin, he made sin for us."14 c) For the punishment or effect of sin. In this sense can be understood the text: "It is therefore a holy and salutary thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."15
2. The name of vice by modern authors is customarily taken for greater sins (Verbrechen), but by St. Thomas16 and the old scholastics for a sinful habit.
13 Rom. 7, 17.
14 2 Cor. 5, 21.
15 2 Mach. 12, 46.
16 S. theol. 1, 2, q. 71.
358. Definition of sin. In catechisms sin is customarily defined simply according to St. Ambrose:17 a prevarication of divine law. This definition indeed is good, but St. Augustine gives a more explicit definition:18 "Sin is a deed or word or something desired against the eternal law of God."
St. Thomas has a special article19 for showing the fittingness of this definition. For that definition is good which explains the material and formal element of the thing defined, since every temporal thing coalesces from some material and formal element. But the aforesaid definition first explains the material element in sin, namely, the human act. For every sin of men is a truly human act. Augustine could indeed have said more briefly: Sin is a human act against the law of God; but he better added the diverse words (deed, word, desire), expressing sins of deed, of mouth, of heart.20 For there were some who denied that depraved thoughts are sins; but others taught that the external acts themselves are not sins. - Besides, the aforesaid definition excellently also explains the formal element in sin, namely, by the words "against the eternal law of God." For no true moral sin is given which is not against the eternal law of God. For above it was proved that all other laws must be derived from the eternal law and are just laws obliging in conscience insofar as they agree with the eternal law. Therefore those acts which are against some other just moral law, by that very fact, are also opposed to the eternal law of God. - But since every true moral sin is formally against the eternal law of God, it follows that every sin is an offense against God, nor does there exist a merely philosophical sin, which indeed would be against right reason, but would not constitute an offense against God and therefore would not merit the punishment of gehenna or purgatory. Already above in n. 25 the intrinsic reason was indicated why merely philosophical sin is not possible.
Conditions required for sin. Since every sin is a human and moral act, sufficient knowledge of the malice of the act and consent on the part of the will are required for it; or in other words: there is required a) advertence at least indirect to the malice of the act and b) consent, whether direct or at least indirect, to this malice. Consent and advertence are called direct if the malice of the act is known and intended in itself; but they are called indirect if they are known and intended only in the cause. For this reason he who in no way adverts to or suspects the malice of his act (on account of an invincibly erroneous conscience or forgetfulness) does not commit a formal sin; but he who from culpable negligence does not advert to the malice of his act is not excused from every fault. Generally here those things must be recalled which were said above in n. 35 sqq. concerning the requisites for a human act.
17 Lib. de paradiso c. 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 14, 309).
18 Contra Faustum l. 22, c. 27 (Migne, Patr. lat. 42, 418).
19 S. theol. 1, 2, q. 71, a. 6.
20 Under the name of word and deed culpable omissions also are comprehended, because affirmation and negation are referred to the same genus. Cf. S. theol. 1, 2, q. 71, a. 6 ad 1.
359. Scholion. On the formal constitutive element of sin. The old scholastics, investigating more deeply the nature of sin, posed the question whether the formal constitutive element of sin is something positive or privative.21 All indeed must admit that in sin there is something positive, namely a disordered conversion toward a temporal good, and also something privative, namely aversion from God; but they are not agreed as to which of these is more essential. This controversy indeed is of little practical usefulness. St. Thomas22 rightly teaches: "Every sin consists formally in aversion from God"; and again:23 "Mortal fault has both: both aversion from God and conversion to a created good; but aversion from God is there as the formal element, while conversion is there as the material element." Blessed Albert says neatly: "Sin is an averting conversion." Aversion from God, which is in any mortal sin, is punished in gehenna by compelled aversion, that is, the punishment of loss; but the disordered conversion toward creatures will be punished after death by the punishment of sense.
21 See Billuart l. c. diss. 1, a. 3.
22 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 118, a. 5.