Chapter VI. On the Effects of Sin

390. Preliminary note. 1. After St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica treated of the causes of sin, he treats of its effects. Following in the footsteps of the Angelic Doctor, we also treat of the effects of sin, yet omitting those things which are had concerning the effects of original sin, since these are now customarily treated rather in Dogmatics. Indeed several deadly effects of original sin are produced, more or less, also by personal sin; for example, those four wounds which original sin inflicted on human nature are renewed and aggravated through personal sin, namely ignorance in the intellect, malice in the will, weakness in the irascible power, and disordered concupiscence in the concupiscible power. For mournful experience manifestly shows that by personal sins often repeated the human intellect is gradually blinded concerning the truths of faith and morals. Indeed this frequency of sins can blind the intellect to such an extent that it scarcely, or not even scarcely, sees the ways of salvation, but as if headlong in darkness rushes from one sin into another. Moreover malice in the will is caused and increased by repeated vices, so that at last, at some time, obstinacy is effected. That weakness in resisting and a greater disordered propensity in desiring arise from repeated sins is especially clear in disordered passions, for example in sins of drunkenness, lust, etc. The Angelic Doctor⁴⁴ briefly gathers all these things, saying: "Those four wounds were inflicted on the whole of human nature from the sin of the first parent. But because the inclination to the good of virtue in each one is diminished through actual sin, those also are the four wounds consequent upon other sins, insofar namely as through sin reason is dulled chiefly in things to be done, and the will is hardened toward good, and a greater difficulty of acting well increases, and concupiscence burns more intensely."

⁴⁴ S. theol. 1, 2, q. 85, a. 3.

391. 2. The effect of sin is called by more modern authors habitual sin; this name does not seem to be a happy innovation, since habitual sin can easily be confused with a habit of sinning, which nevertheless is altogether something else. Habitual sin is understood as the culpable disorder remaining from any sin, or the state of sin. The ancient theologians of the Middle Ages called this a stain.⁴⁵ But under the name of stain they properly understood voluntary privation of sanctifying grace;⁴⁶ and therefore stain, properly speaking, is not caused except by mortal sin: "Venial sin indeed impedes actual brightness, but not habitual brightness, because it neither excludes nor diminishes the habit of charity and of the other virtues, but only impedes their act. But stain imports something remaining in the stained thing; hence it seems more to pertain to the detriment of habitual brightness than of actual. Hence properly speaking venial sin does not cause stain in the soul. And if somewhere it is said to introduce stain, this is in a certain respect, insofar as it impedes brightness, which is from acts of the virtues."⁴⁷

Since the chief division of actual sin is into mortal and venial, the effects of mortal and venial sin must be seen separately.

⁴⁵ Concerning the diverse opinions about the stain of sin, see Billuart, De pecc. diss. 7, a. 2, § 2.

⁴⁶ St. Thomas teaches: "Stain is not something positive in the soul, nor does it signify privation alone, but it signifies a certain privation of the brightness of the soul in order to its cause, which is sin; and therefore diverse sins introduce diverse stains" (S. theol. 1, 2, q. 86, a. 1, ad 3).

⁴⁷ S. theol. 1, 2, q. 89, a. 1.