Article IV. On the Effects of Sins

Dogmatic theologians treat of the effects of original sin; hence our discussion is chiefly of the effects of personal sin. Three are assigned, namely the corruption of natural good, the guilt of fault or stain of sin, and liability to punishment.

I. Corruption of natural good consists in this, that personal sin causes the wounds inflicted by original sin to become worse. These are:

1. Ignorance, insofar as reason is so deprived of its order to the true that it is prone to assenting to the false, and finds assenting to the true difficult, and is deprived of knowledge of necessary things.

2. Malice, insofar as the will is so deprived of its order to the good that it is prone to evil and finds choosing the good difficult.

3. Weakness, insofar as the irascible appetite is so deprived of its order to the arduous that it is weak for tolerating adversities.

4. Concupiscence, insofar as the concupiscible appetite is so deprived of its order to sensible good that it is prone to desiring it against the order of reason.

Now "these four are wounds inflicted upon the whole of human nature from the sin of the first parent. But because the inclination to the good of virtue in each person is diminished by actual sin, as is clear from what has been said, articles 1 and 2 of this question, these also are the four wounds resulting from other sins; namely, insofar as through sin reason is dulled especially in practical matters, and the will is hardened toward the good, and greater difficulty of acting well increases, and concupiscence burns more intensely" (St. Thomas, I-II, q. 85, a. 3).

II. Guilt of fault or stain. 1. Notion. The stain of sin is the privation of the beauty of the soul, connoting the sin from which it was contracted. It is said "connoting the sin from which it was contracted," because the stain has the character of fault; hence it is moral and voluntary, or it connotes the act of the will by which it was produced. The stain does not differ from fault and habitual sin. It is called fault insofar as it is conceived as the privation of the order due to God; habitual sin, insofar as it is considered as the state of the soul remaining from actual sin not remitted.¹

2. Existence. The stain remains in the soul after the act of sin. This is clear: 1. from Sacred Scripture: "Is it a small thing to you that you sinned in Beelphegor, and unto the present day the stain of this crime remains in us?"² 2. By reason. "Stain, as was said, imports a certain defect of brightness on account of departure from the light of reason or of the divine law; and therefore, as long as man remains outside light of this kind, the stain of sin remains in him. But after he returns to the light of reason and to the divine light, which happens through grace, then the stain ceases. Although the act of sin ceases, by which man departed from the light of reason or of divine law, nevertheless man does not immediately return to that in which he had been; rather, some motion of the will contrary to the first motion is required. Just as if someone is distant from another through some motion, when the motion ceases he does not immediately become near to him, but it is necessary that he approach by returning through a contrary motion" (St. Thomas, I-II, q. 86, a. 2). Hence proposition 56 among the Baian propositions was deservedly condemned: "In sin there are two things, the act and the guilt; but when the act has passed, nothing remains except the guilt or obligation to punishment."³

3. Division. The brightness of the soul, in the privation of which the stain consists, is twofold according to these words of St. Thomas: "The soul of man has a twofold brightness: one from the shining of the rational light of reason, by which it is directed in its acts; the other from the shining of the divine light, namely of wisdom and grace, by which also man is perfected for acting well and fittingly" (I-II, q. 86, a. 1). Therefore:

a) The stain of mortal sin consists in the privation of rectitude both natural and supernatural, i.e., of sanctifying grace, charity, the supernatural virtues, except faith and hope, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and merits.

b) The stain of venial sin is situated in the privation of the fervor of charity. "It must be said that stain can be in two ways: in one way through the privation of beauty, and thus in venial sin no stain remains, because it does not take away grace, which is the beauty of the soul. In another way through this, that the beauty which belongs to grace is impeded from appearing outwardly, just as the beauty of a face is spoiled by dust; and such a stain is in venial sin, because the beauty of grace is impeded from being shown outwardly in acts" (St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 16, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1). From these things it is clear why St. Thomas does not call the stain of venial sin a stain simply, but in a certain respect (I-II, q. 89, a. 1), namely because it does not deprive of grace, through which beauty is present in the soul.

Corollary I. The stains of diverse sins differ, since a stain is a privation connoting the sin from which it was contracted; hence it is diverse insofar as the sin which it connotes is diverse (St. Thomas, I-II, q. 86, a. 1, ad 3).

Corollary II. A new sin is said to cause a new stain insofar as of itself it is privative of grace, and therefore constitutes a new cause of privation.

¹ Billuart, De peccatis, diss. 7, art. 1.

² Josh. 22:17.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1056.

III. Liability to punishment. 1. Notion. Liability to punishment is the condignity of undergoing punishment because of sin committed. Now punishment is some evil to be inflicted, or inflicted, by legitimate authority upon an agent for a morally evil action.

2. Existence. Sacred Scripture teaches that liability to punishment is induced by sin: "Many are the scourges of the sinner."¹ "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man working evil."² Then reason requires that he who has violated order be cast down by the prince of order, namely so that the violated order may in some way be restored through a certain repayment of punishment (St. Thomas, I-II, q. 87, a. 2).

3. Quality of the punishment to which sins induce liability.

a) Mortal sin induces liability to a twofold punishment, namely of loss and of sense, each eternal; this the dogmatic theologians prove at length.

b) Venial sin of itself induces liability to temporal punishment. But by accident it induces eternal punishment when the sinner dies with venial sin not remitted as to fault. Thus St. Thomas (I-II, q. 87, a. 5, ad 3) against Scotus. And indeed, while fault remains, liability to punishment remains. But in the damned there remains the fault of venial sin not remitted in this life, since the damned are simply at the terminus, and therefore incapable of acts of charity or repentance.

Note. Mortal or venial sin remitted in this life as to fault, more probably, is not punished in hell by eternal punishment; rather, once satisfaction has been made, the punishment comes to an end.

¹ Ps. 31:10.

² Rom. 2:9.