Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins. Because an effect is not produced without its proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of sins is grace; for man's sins are not forgiven through his own merits; wherefore it is written (Eph. 2:4,5): "God, Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity, wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, by Whose grace you are saved." Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.

Objection 2: Further, venial sins are not forgiven without Penance. Now grace is infused, in Penance as in the other sacraments of the New Law. Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.

Objection 3: Further, venial sin produces a stain on the soul. Now a stain is not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty of the soul. Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.

On the contrary, The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor diminishes grace, as stated in the 2.2, Question 24, Article 10. Therefore, in like manner, an infusion of grace is not necessary in order to remove venial sin.

I answer that, Each thing is removed by its contrary. But venial sin is not contrary to habitual grace or charity, but hampers its act, through man being too much attached to a created good, albeit not in opposition to God, as stated in the 1.2, Question 88, Article 1; 2.2, Question 24, Article 10. Therefore, in order that venial sin be removed, it is not necessary that habitual grace be infused, but a movement of grace or charity suffices for its forgiveness.

Nevertheless, since in those who have the use of free-will (in whom alone can there be venial sins), there can be no infusion of grace without an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against sin, consequently whenever grace is infused anew, venial sins are forgiven.

Reply to Objection 1: Even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of grace, in virtue of the act which grace produces anew, but not through any habit infused anew into the soul.

Reply to Objection 2: Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (Article 1): it can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (Question 87, Article 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every act of virtue.

Reply to Objection 3: Just as there are two kinds of bodily stain, one consisting in the privation of something required for beauty, e.g. the right color or the due proportion of members, and another by the introduction of some hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so too, a stain is put on the soul, in one way, by the privation of the beauty of grace through mortal sin, in another, by the inordinate inclination of the affections to some temporal thing, and this is the result of venial sin. Consequently, an infusion of grace is necessary for the removal of mortal sin, but in order to remove venial sin, it is necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace, removing the inordinate attachment to the temporal thing.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad remissionem venialium peccatorum requiratur gratiae infusio. Effectus enim non est sine propria causa. Sed propria causa remissionis peccatorum est gratia, non enim ex meritis propriis hominis peccata propria remittuntur; unde dicitur Ephes. II, deus, qui dives est in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos in christo, cuius gratia salvati estis.

Ergo peccata venialia non remittuntur sine gratiae infusione.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, peccata venialia non remittuntur sine poenitentia.

Sed in poenitentia infunditur gratia, sicut et in aliis sacramentis novae legis. Ergo peccata venialia non remittuntur sine gratiae infusione.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, peccatum veniale maculam quandam animae infert.

Sed macula non aufertur nisi per gratiam, quae est spiritualis animae decor. Ergo videtur quod peccata venialia non remittantur sine gratiae infusione.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod peccatum veniale adveniens non tollit gratiam, neque etiam diminuit eam, ut in secunda parte habitum est.

Ergo, pari ratione, ad hoc quod peccatum veniale remittatur, non requiritur novae gratiae infusio.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque tollitur per suum oppositum.

Peccatum autem veniale non contrariatur habituali gratiae vel caritati, sed retardat actum eius, inquantum nimis haeret homo bono creato, licet non contra deum, ut in secunda parte habitum est.

Et ideo ad hoc quod peccatum tollatur, non requiritur aliqua habitualis gratia, sed sufficit aliquis motus gratiae vel caritatis ad eius remissionem. Quia tamen in habentibus usum liberi arbitrii, in quibus solum possunt esse peccata venialia, non contingit esse infusionem gratiae sine actuali motu liberi arbitrii in deum et in peccatum; ideo, quandocumque de novo gratia infunditur, peccata venialia remittuntur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam remissio peccatorum venialium est effectus gratiae, per actum scilicet quem de novo elicit, non autem per aliquid habituale de novo animae infusum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod veniale peccatum nunquam remittitur sine aliquali actu poenitentiae virtutis, explicito scilicet vel implicito, ut supra dictum est.

Potest tamen remitti veniale peccatum sine poenitentiae sacramento, quod in absolutione sacerdotis formaliter perficitur, ut supra dictum est.

Et ideo non sequitur quod ad remissionem venialis requiratur gratiae infusio, quae licet sit in quolibet sacramento, non tamen in quolibet actu virtutis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in corpore contingit esse maculam dupliciter, uno modo per privationem eius quod requiritur ad decorem, puta debiti coloris aut debitae proportionis membrorum, alio modo per superinductionem alicuius impedientis decorem, puta luti aut pulveris; ita etiam in anima inducitur macula uno modo per privationem decoris gratiae per peccatum mortale, alio modo per inclinationem inordinatam affectus ad aliquid temporale; et hoc fit per peccatum veniale. Et ideo ad tollendam maculam mortalis peccati requiritur infusio gratiae, sed ad tollendam maculam peccati venialis, requiritur aliquis actus procedens a gratia per quem removeatur inordinata adhaesio ad rem temporalem.