Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that sin causes no stain on the soul. For a higher nature cannot be defiled by contact with a lower nature: hence the sun's ray is not defiled by contact with tainted bodies, as Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v). Now the human soul is of a much higher nature than mutable things, to which it turns by sinning. Therefore it does not contract a stain from them by sinning.

Objection 2: Further, sin is chiefly in the will, as stated above (Question 74, Articles 1,2). Now the will is in the reason, as stated in De Anima iii, text. 42. But the reason or intellect is not stained by considering anything whatever; rather indeed is it perfected thereby. Therefore neither is the will stained by sin.

Objection 3: Further, if sin causes a stain, this stain is either something positive, or a pure privation. If it be something positive, it can only be either a disposition or a habit: for it seems that nothing else can be caused by an act. But it is neither disposition nor habit: for it happens that a stain remains even after the removal of a disposition or habit; for instance, in a man who after committing a mortal sin of prodigality, is so changed as to fall into a sin of the opposite vice. Therefore the stain does not denote anything positive in the soul. Again, neither is it a pure privation. Because all sins agree on the part of aversion and privation of grace: and so it would follow that there is but one stain caused by all sins. Therefore the stain is not the effect of sin.

On the contrary, It was said to Solomon (Ecclus. 47:22): "Thou hast stained thy glory": and it is written (Eph. 5:27): "That He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle": and in each case it is question of the stain of sin. Therefore a stain is the effect of sin.

I answer that, A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man's soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.

Reply to Objection 1: The soul is not defiled by inferior things, by their own power, as though they acted on the soul: on the contrary, the soul, by its own action, defiles itself, through cleaving to them inordinately, against the light of reason and of the Divine law.

Reply to Objection 2: The action of the intellect is accomplished by the intelligible thing being in the intellect, according to the mode of the intellect, so that the intellect is not defiled, but perfected, by them. On the other hand, the act of the will consists in a movement towards things themselves, so that love attaches the soul to the thing loved. Thus it is that the soul is stained, when it cleaves inordinately, according to Osee 9:10: "They . . . became abominable as those things were which they loved."

Reply to Objection 3: The stain is neither something positive in the soul, nor does it denote a pure privation: it denotes a privation of the soul's brightness in relation to its cause, which is sin; wherefore diverse sins occasion diverse stains. It is like a shadow, which is the privation of light through the interposition of a body, and which varies according to the diversity of the interposed bodies.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum non causet aliquam maculam in anima. Natura enim superior non potest inquinari ex contactu naturae inferioris, unde radius solaris non inquinatur per tactum corporum fetidorum, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro contra quinque haereses.

Sed anima humana est multo superioris naturae quam res commutabiles, ad quas peccando convertitur.

Ergo ex eis maculam non contrahit peccando.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, peccatum est principaliter in voluntate, ut supra dictum est.

Voluntas autem est in ratione, ut dicitur in III de anima.

Sed ratio, sive intellectus, non maculatur ex consideratione quarumcumque rerum, sed magis perficitur. Ergo nec voluntas ex peccato maculatur.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, si peccatum maculam causat, aut macula illa est aliquid positive, aut est privatio pura. Si sit aliquid positive, non potest esse nisi dispositio vel habitus, nihil enim aliud videtur ex actu causari. Dispositio autem et habitus non est, contingit enim, remota dispositione vel habitu, adhuc remanere maculam; ut patet in eo qui peccavit mortaliter prodigalitate, et postea transmutatur, mortaliter peccando, in habitum vitii oppositi. Non ergo macula ponit aliquid positive in anima.

Similiter etiam nec est privatio pura. Quia omnia peccata conveniunt ex parte aversionis et privationis gratiae.

Sequeretur ergo quod omnium peccatorum esset macula una.

Ergo macula non est effectus peccati.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur, Eccli. XLVII, Salomoni, dedisti maculam in gloria tua.

Et Ephes. V, ut exhiberet sibi gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam.

Et utrobique loquitur de macula peccati.

Ergo macula est effectus peccati.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod macula proprie dicitur in corporalibus, quando aliquod corpus nitidum perdit suum nitorem ex contactu alterius corporis, sicut vestis et aurum et argentum, aut aliud huiusmodi. In rebus autem spiritualibus ad similitudinem huius oportet maculam dici. Habet autem anima hominis duplicem nitorem, unum quidem ex refulgentia luminis naturalis rationis, per quam dirigitur in suis actibus; alium vero ex refulgentia divini luminis, scilicet sapientiae et gratiae, per quam etiam homo perficitur ad bene et decenter agendum. Est autem quasi quidam animae tactus, quando inhaeret aliquibus rebus per amorem. Cum autem peccat, adhaeret rebus aliquibus contra lumen rationis et divinae legis, ut ex supradictis patet.

Unde ipsum detrimentum nitoris ex tali contactu proveniens, macula animae metaphorice vocatur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod anima non inquinatur ex rebus inferioribus virtute earum, quasi agentibus eis in animam, sed magis e converso anima sua actione se inquinat, inordinate eis inhaerendo, contra lumen rationis et divinae legis.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod actio intellectus perficitur secundum quod res intelligibiles sunt in intellectu per modum ipsius intellectus, et ideo intellectus ex eis non inficitur, sed magis perficitur. Sed actus voluntatis consistit in motu ad ipsas res, ita quod amor conglutinat animam rei amatae. Et ex hoc anima maculatur, quando in ordinate inhaeret; secundum illud Osee IX, facti sunt abominabiles, sicut ea quae dilexerunt.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod macula non est aliquid positive in anima, nec significat privationem solam, sed significat privationem quandam nitoris animae in ordine ad suam causam, quae est peccatum. Et ideo diversa peccata diversas maculas inducunt. Et est simile de umbra, quae est privatio luminis ex obiecto alicuius corporis, et secundum diversitatem corporum obiectorum diversificantur umbrae.