← Back to Distinction 31

Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 31

Textus Latinus
p. 753

Articulus II. Quaestio III. Utrum caro inficiatur ex propagatione tantum, vel ex propagatione et libidine.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum caro ipsa inficiatur ex propagatione tantum, vel ex propagatione et libidine. Et quod ex libidine, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Augustini de Fide ad Petrum1: « Peccatum originale non transmittit ad parvulos propagatio, sed libido »: si ergo anima ex p. 754 foeditate carnis contrahit originale, illa foeditas est in carne non ex propagatione, sed ex libidine.

2. Item, Magister in littera2: « Pollutio quaedam est in carne, quam ex fervore coitus parentum et concupiscentia libidinosa contrahit caro, dum concipitur ». Ex hoc apparet, quod foeditas illa in carne non est ex propagatione, sed ex libidine.

3. Item, Christus de beata Virgine conceptus est ex massa humani generis, et tamen nec habuit illam foeditatem in carne nec originale in anima: ergo talis foeditas in carne non est, quia caro ex carne educitur, sed quia cum libidine seminatur3.

4. Item, si nunquam natura lapsa esset, nihilominus esset propagatio carnis ex carne; nec esset in ea4 foeditas nec peccatum originale per consequens: ergo si in propagatione hominis ex homine est traductio originalis, hoc non est ratione ipsius propagationis, sed ratione adiunctae libidinis.

5. Item, si fieret propagatio absque libidine, iam nulla esset inordinatio ex parte virtutis generativae: si nulla esset inordinatio ex parte virtutis generativae, nulla esset foedatio in semine; et si hoc, nec esset foeditas in carne, nec in anima contraheretur originale5. Si ergo caro inficitur et vitiatur, hoc non est ex propagatione tantum, sed etiam libidine.

Sed contra: 1. Originale peccatum contrahimus, quia in Adam peccavimus eo modo, quo in ipso eramus; in ipso autem eramus secundum propagationem, non secundum libidinem: ergo tam originale quam carnis foeditatem propagatione contrahimus, non libidine.

2. Item, libido respicit parentes proximos; sed originalis traductio respicit primos parentes: unde non dicimur contrahere originale a parente proximo, sed ab Adam6: ergo videtur, quod ipsa libido, quae est in coitu, nihil facit ad transfundendum peccatum originale.

3. Item, possibile est, coniuges sanctos ex caritate coire absque omni peccato; sed ubicumque est libido, ibi est voluntatis improbitas et aliqua culpa: ergo possibile esset, eos generare absque libidine: igitur si traductio foeditatis carnis vel originalis peccati esset ratione libidinis, proles sic genita non haberet culpam originalem.

4. Item, si traductio originalis esset ratione libidinis, ergo ille qui cum maiori libidine nasceretur, maius contraheret originale; sed natus ex adulterio cum maiori libidine generatur quam ille, qui nascitur ex legitimo matrimonio7: ergo videtur, quod maior esset in eo originalis culpa. Si igitur corruptione originalis peccati omnes corrumpuntur aequaliter, videtur, quod talis corruptio non traducatur per libidinem.

5. Item, ponatur, quod semen descinderetur8 de lumbis viri et infunderetur vasculo mulieris, ita quod nec vir sentiret delectationem nec mulier; esset ibi prolis conceptio absque libidine: ergo talis proles non haberet peccatum originale. Quodsi hoc est absurdum ponere et intelligere, quod aliquis ex semine Adae generetur sine corruptione, nisi in eo solo, qui conceptus est ex Virgine per virtutem supra naturam; non videtur foeditatem carnis vel originale peccatum transmittere ad posteros libido, sed propagatio.

Conclusio

Si libido intelligitur in sensu vitiosae corruptionis, tunc concurrit ad inficiendam in propagatione carnem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut expresse dicit Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum, et Magister dicit in littera9, foeditas carnis et contractio originalis non tantum est ex lege propagationis, sed etiam ex foeditate libidinis. Unde Augustinus dicit: « Peccatum in parvulos non transmittit propagatio, sed libido, nec fecunditas naturae humanae facit homines nasci cum peccato, sed foeditas libidinis ».

Ad cuius verbi intelligentiam et etiam obiectorum notandum est, quod libido tripliciter dicitur. Uno modo libido dicitur improba voluntas, secundum quem modum dicit Augustinus in libro de Libero Arbitrio10: « Nihil aliud videmus in toto malefaciendi genere, nisi libidinem dominari », hoc est voluntatis improbitatem. — Alio modo libido dicitur delectatio immoderata, secundum quod dicimus, maiorem esse libidinem in opere virtutis generativae quam alterius potentiae11. — Tertio modo dicitur libido corruptio vitiosa, quam dicimus esse in semine et etiam in virtute generativa praeter actum generandi, secundum quam ipsa vis generativa dicitur esse corrupta et infecta12. — Omnibus his mo­dis contingit, libidinem esse circa actum generationis humanae, quoniam ibi et est corruptio vitiosa et delectatio immoderata et voluntas improba. Sine prima tamen libidine, hoc est improba voluntate, contingit generari frequenter; sine secunda, hoc est immoderata delectatione, vix aut nunquam; sine tertia nunquam, si sit generatio secundum legem naturae. p. 755 Cum ergo dicitur, quod « peccatum transmittit ad posteros non propagatio, sed libido », hoc non intelligitur de libidine primo et secundo modo, sed tertio. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnes rationes, quae adducuntur ad utramque partem. Nam primae auctoritates et rationes, quae ostendunt originale transfundi propter libidinem, loquuntur de libidine in acceptione tertia. — Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de libidine in acceptione prima et secunda, et hoc patet pertractanti omnes et singulas13.

Scholion

I. Hac et sequente huius articuli quaest. multa illustrantur et determinantur, quae in praecedente quaest. dicta sunt. — De appetitu naturali et deliberativo vide supra d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 3, infra d. 38. a. 2. q. 1; IV. Sent. d. 49. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. De essentiali ordine et appetitu animae ad corpus cfr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 1. q. 5. ad ult., d. 44. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. — In seq. (3.) quaest. bene distinguitur triplex libido, quae doctrina etiam ab aliis Scholasticis recepta est, praesertim a S. Thom. (hic q. I. a. I. ad 3; de Malo, q. 4. a. 6, ad 16.). Cfr. etiam Bonav., hic dub. 4; Breviloq. p. III. c. 6.

II. Pauci antiqui magistri de his duabus quaest. explicite disputant, sed eas tangunt in praecedentibus quaest. Distincte agit de 2. quaest. Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. et de 3. quaest. ibid. q. 2. Solummodo de 3. quaest. agunt: S. Thom., locc. et art. citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2.

---

English Translation

Article II. Question III. Whether the flesh is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust.

Thirdly it is asked whether the flesh itself is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust. And that it is by lust, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of Augustine, On the Faith, to Peter1: « Original sin is not transmitted to little ones by propagation, but by lust »: if therefore the soul contracts the original [sin] from the foulness of the flesh, that foulness is in the flesh not from propagation, but from lust.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text2: « There is a certain pollution in the flesh, which the flesh contracts from the heat of the parents' coitus and from libidinous concupiscence, while it is conceived ». From this it appears that that foulness in the flesh is not from propagation, but from lust.

3. Likewise, Christ, conceived of the blessed Virgin, is from the mass of the human race, and yet He had neither that foulness in the flesh nor the original [sin] in the soul: therefore such foulness is in the flesh not because the flesh is brought forth from flesh, but because it is sown with lust3.

4. Likewise, if nature had never fallen, there would nonetheless be propagation of flesh from flesh; nor would there be foulness in it4 nor, consequently, original sin: therefore if in the propagation of man from man there is a transmission of the original [sin], this is not by reason of the propagation itself, but by reason of the adjoined lust.

5. Likewise, if propagation came about without lust, then there would be no disorder on the part of the generative power: if there were no disorder on the part of the generative power, there would be no defilement in the seed; and if this, there would be neither foulness in the flesh, nor would the original [sin] be contracted in the soul5. If therefore the flesh is infected and vitiated, this is not from propagation alone, but also from lust.

On the contrary: 1. We contract the original sin because we sinned in Adam in that mode in which we were in him; but in him we were according to propagation, not according to lust: therefore we contract both the original [sin] and the foulness of the flesh by propagation, not by lust.

2. Likewise, lust regards the proximate parents; but the transmission of the original [sin] regards the first parents: hence we are not said to contract the original [sin] from a proximate parent, but from Adam6: therefore it seems that the lust itself, which is in coitus, does nothing toward transfusing original sin.

3. Likewise, it is possible for holy spouses to come together out of charity without any sin; but wherever there is lust, there is improbity of will and some fault: therefore it would be possible for them to generate without lust: therefore if the transmission of the foulness of the flesh or of original sin were by reason of lust, offspring thus begotten would not have the original fault.

4. Likewise, if the transmission of the original [sin] were by reason of lust, then he who was born with greater lust would contract a greater original [sin]; but one born of adultery is generated with greater lust than one who is born of lawful marriage7: therefore it seems that the original fault would be greater in him. If therefore by the corruption of original sin all are corrupted equally, it seems that such corruption is not transmitted through lust.

5. Likewise, suppose that the seed were drawn off8 from the loins of the man and infused into the vessel of the woman, such that neither the man nor the woman should feel delight; there would be there a conception of offspring without lust: therefore such offspring would not have original sin. But if it is absurd to suppose and to understand that anyone be generated from the seed of Adam without corruption, except in Him alone who was conceived of the Virgin by a power above nature; it does not seem that lust transmits the foulness of the flesh or the original sin to posterity, but propagation.

Conclusio

If lust is understood in the sense of vicious corruption, then it concurs in infecting the flesh in propagation.

I respond: It must be said that, as Augustine expressly says in the book On the Faith, to Peter, and the Master says in the text9, the foulness of the flesh and the contraction of the original [sin] is not only from the law of propagation, but also from the foulness of lust. Hence Augustine says: « Sin is transmitted to little ones not by propagation, but by lust, nor does the fecundity of human nature cause men to be born with sin, but the foulness of lust ».

For the understanding of this saying and also of the objections, it must be noted that lust is said in three ways. In one way lust is said to be an improbity of will, according to which mode Augustine says in the book On Free Choice10: « We see nothing else in the whole genus of evildoing except lust dominating », that is, the improbity of will. — In another way lust is said to be immoderate delight, according to which we say that there is greater lust in the work of the generative power than of another power11. — In a third way lust is said to be vicious corruption, which we say to be in the seed and also in the generative power apart from the act of generating, according to which the generative power itself is said to be corrupted and infected12. — In all these ways it happens that lust is about the act of human generation, since there both is vicious corruption and immoderate delight and improbity of will. Yet without the first lust, that is, without improbity of will, it happens that generation frequently occurs; without the second, that is, without immoderate delight, scarcely or never; without the third, never, if it be a generation according to the law of nature. Therefore when it is said that « it is not propagation that transmits sin to posterity, but lust », this is not understood of lust in the first and second mode, but in the third. — And through this the response to all the arguments which are adduced for each part is clear. For the first authorities and arguments, which show that the original [sin] is transfused on account of lust, speak of lust in the third acceptation. — But the arguments to the opposite proceed concerning lust in the first and second acceptation, and this is clear to one who works through each and every one of them13.

Scholion

I. By this and the following question of this article many things are illustrated and determined which were said in the preceding question. — On natural and deliberative appetite see above d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 3; below d. 38, a. 2, q. 1; Sent. IV, d. 49, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. On the essential order and the appetite of the soul for the body cf. Sent. IV, d. 43, a. 1, q. 5 ad ult., d. 44, p. I, a. 2, q. 1. — In the following (third) question the threefold lust is well distinguished, which doctrine has also been received by other Scholastics, especially by St. Thomas (here q. I, a. I, ad 3; de Malo, q. 4, a. 6, ad 16). Cf. also Bonaventure, here dub. 4; Breviloquium p. III, c. 6.

II. Few of the ancient masters explicitly dispute about these two questions, but they touch upon them in the preceding questions. Richard of Mediavilla treats distinctly of the second question, here a. 2, q. 3, and of the third question, ibid. q. 2. Of the third question alone treat: St. Thomas, in the places and articles cited; — Bl. Albert, here a. 2; — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 2. n. 16, ubi pro ad parvulos textus orig. habet in parvulos. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.
    Ch. 2, n. 16, where for to little ones the original text has in little ones. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7.
  2. Hic c. 6. — In textu allato Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 posuit in fervore pro ex fervore, et ex concupiscentia pro et concupiscentia.
    Here c. 6. — In the text quoted the Vatican edition, with editions 2, 3, 4, put in the heat for from the heat, and from concupiscence for and concupiscence.
  3. Hoc arg. insinuatur a Magistro, hic in lit. c. 7.
    This argument is insinuated by the Master, here in the text, c. 7.
  4. Edd., excepta 1, eo.
    The editions, except the 1st, read eo [for it].
  5. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo superius pro et si hoc, nec Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 et si haec non esset, nulla (Vat. non).
    Cf. above a. 1, q. 3. — A little above, for and if this, neither the Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4 reads and if this [foulness] were not, none (the Vatican omits none).
  6. Vide infra d. 33. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro dicimur codd. F K T Y ee et alii cum ed. 1 dicuntur, codd. aa bb cum ed. 2 dicitur.
    See below d. 33, a. 1, q. 1. — For we are said the codices F K T Y ee and others with the 1st edition read they are said, the codices aa bb with the 2nd edition it is said.
  7. Ut ostenditur infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2 omittunt matrimonio, pro quo Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 substituit thoro.
    As is shown below d. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — A little above several codices with editions 1, 2 omit marriage, for which the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 substitutes the marriage-bed.
  8. Cod. M decideretur, cod. aa decidatur, cod. bb traduceretur. Circa finem arg. pro ex Virgine Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 in Virgine, cod. aa de Virgine.
    Codex M reads decideretur, codex aa decidatur, codex bb traduceretur. Near the end of the argument, for of the Virgin the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 reads in the Virgin, codex aa from the Virgin.
  9. Hic c. 7, ubi etiam verba Augustini habentur. — In textu Augustini mox allato Vat. cum ed. 3 falso transformavit fecunditas naturae in foeditas naturae.
    Here c. 7, where also the words of Augustine are had. — In the text of Augustine quoted just after, the Vatican edition with the 3rd edition falsely transformed the fecundity of nature into the foulness of nature.
  10. Libr. I. c. 3. n. 8. Cfr. et illud in eius libro de Mendacio, c. 7. n. 10: Libido quoque ipsa recte definitur appetitus animi, quo aeternis bonis quaelibet temporalia praeponuntur.
    Book I, c. 3, n. 8. Cf. also that passage in his book On Lying, c. 7, n. 10: Lust too is rightly defined as an appetite of the mind by which any temporal things whatever are preferred to eternal goods.
  11. Vide August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 16.
    See Augustine, On the City of God XIV, c. 16.
  12. Cfr. August., I. Operis imperf. contra Iulian. c. 70; II. c. 42; et IV. Contra Iulian. Pelagianum, c. 9. n. 54.
    Cf. Augustine, Unfinished Work against Julian I, c. 70; II, c. 42; and Against Julian the Pelagian IV, c. 9, n. 54.
  13. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question.
← Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 31, Dubia→