Recovering the orthodox doctrine of original sin (2)

The first part is here. In the first part, I covered how the Protestant Reformers corrupted the teachings of St. Augustine to form a warped view on original sin which took them straight to total depravity. Even the libertarian free will philosophers of the Protestant theologians ended up taking the view of total depravity due to the force of pseudo-orthodoxy it imposed upon the Protestant faithful. Working backwards through history though takes us next to the Medieval Catholic theology as it began to permeate. The most well-developed theologies concerning original sin exist in both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm. What exactly is the Medieval Catholic teaching of original sin? Does it become that total depravity view that we see existing in the Protestant theologians of the Reformation?

Both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm begin their reflections by comparing original sin to original justice. St. Anselm describes original justice as the justice that Adam and Eve possessed "as soon as they began to exist as humans" (Virgin Conception and Original Sin, ch1). "'original' comes fro the word 'origin'...original sin...is likely to be called 'original' either after the origin of human nature...or after each individual's origin or beginning" (ibid). He distinguishes original sin from personal sin. Personal sin is that which arises from the individual "after he has become a person distinct from other persons" but original sin is contracted from the origin of the person (ibid). Adam and Eve therefore commit a personal sin and not an original sin.

Their bodies after their sin became like those of brute beasts, subject to corruption and these appetites, and deprived of the gifts they had lost, were themselves infected with carnal appetites. And because the whole of human nature was contained in Adam and Eve, and nothing of it existed outside them, the whole of human nature was weakened and corrupted. (ch2)

So in the theology of St. Anselm we see that original sin is described as a state of injustice that has been brought upon the human race by the first personal sin of the two first parents. However, St. Anselm is far from teaching the total depravity of the Reformers. As I have mentioned in another post, St. Anselm describes the current state of affairs for the human race using an analogy of a pearl knocked into the mud (Cur Deus Homo?, Bk1.ch19). This in sharp contrast to the total depravity. Man is still a pearl but the pearl is now covered in mud. That is the injustice of original sin and that injustice is the justice that must be repaired.

St. Thomas Aquinas relies heavily on St. Anselm to build up his argument in regards to original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas defines original sin as "an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice" (Summa Theologiaei, I-II 81:1). It is similar to a bodily ailment as one is subjected to a sickness that damages the body. While maintaining the position that man has been corrupted by the first sin, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the ways that Man is now finding himself in a state of depravity.

I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature. Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue. (I-II, 85:1)

Indeed, God's act is creation. His first act is to create the light. He continues to create the natural world until he rests. God's act is creation. God does not destroy. Satan's act is destruction. Satan's act is uncreation. It is why St. Anselm speaks of sin as nothingness. "Injustice...does not exist, any more than blindness exists. For blindness is nothing but the absence of vision where vision should be." (Virgin Conception and Original Sin, ch5) Injustice and evil are nothing more than the absence of good. But humanity cannot lose its goodness for then the image of God would be lost. This is seen prominently in Medieval Catholic theology as God becomes understood as a pure act of creation. If man has lost the image of God as total depravity falsely teaches, then all sorts of sins between men against each other would be justified because we aren't actually attacking anything. Man would be drifting toward nothingness.

Thus, we see in the Medieval Catholic theology that there exists a distinction between original sin and personal sin. Man retains responsibility over his actions even if in a damaged sense. Man is not totally depraved of all faculties that relate to the image of God but is depraved of original justice. In the Latin, the word iustitia is literally translated as "order". Because of the first sin, Man is in a state of disorder. That is injustice. Injustice is not so much an act as it is a state that Man is in. Thus, original sin is a state that Man is in. It is not a personal act he has committed. This also differs sharply from the Reformers' understanding of original sin. It acknowledges that Man is both communal and an individual. The Reformers only acknowledge that Man is communal and they seek to put him in the communal context wresting Man away from his individuality. It is why Luther and Calvin seek to deny free will and it is why the Wesleyan theology must argue that grace is how free will is restored to the individual.

Finally, I end this section with this piece from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, Canon V: "If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."

Part 3 will focus on the early teachings of the Eastern fathers.