Concupiscence

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of thesoul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lowerappetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rationalappetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entirehumannature and consists in the subordination of reason toGod, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lowerappetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuousappetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition betweenappetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption ofhumannature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature ofsin; forsin, being the free and deliberate transgression of thelaw of God, can be only in the rational will; though it betrue that they aretemptations tosin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged. As thus far considered they are onlysinful objects and antecedent causes ofsinful transgressions; they contract the malice ofsin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter issinful, the former is not. The firstparents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuousappetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment ofGod. A short but important statement of theCatholic doctrine on this point may be quoted fromPeter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent toRome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Ourbelief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In ourfirst parents, however, this complete dominion of reason overappetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternaturalgift of God, that is, a gift not due tohumannature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their originaljustice, which consisted insanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By thesin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural andsupernatural gifts andgraces, the lowerappetite began tolust against the spirit, andevil habits, contracted by personalsins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of whichSt. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good,evil is present with me. For I am delighted with thelaw of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against thelaw of my mind, and captivating me in thelaw ofsin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25)

Christ by His death redeemedmankind fromsin and its bondage. Inbaptism the guilt oforiginal sin is wiped out and thesoul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion ofsanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more thanimmortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

TheReformers of the sixteenth century, especiallyLuther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to theirtheology the following propositions:

TheCatholicChurch condemns these doctrines aserroneous orheretical. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace ofbaptism the guilt oforiginal sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that arebaptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by thegrace of God, and that it is calledsin bySt. Paul, not because it issin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang fromsin and incites tosin. Later onPius V, by theBull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567),Gregory XIII, by theBull "Provisionis Nostrae" (29 Jan., 1579),Urban VIII, by theBull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26),Clement XI, by the Constitution"Unigenitus", those ofQuesnel (34, 35); and finallyPius VI, by theBull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of theSynod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts andgraces bestowed on Adam and constituting his originaljustice were notsupernatural but due tohumannature. (SeeGRACE;JUSTIFICATION;SIN.)

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT