N
Nita
Guest
No - he definitely does not consider it a sin. Hopefully these words of his should put this question to rest for you.
ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP069.html#TPQ69OUTP1
ST Part III, Question 69
Art. 1 Whether All Sins Are Taken Away by Baptism
…….
I answer that, ……Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism.Since concupiscence is still present after Baptism, it is obvious that Aquinas did not consider it a sin.
ST Part III, Question 69
Art. 3 Whether Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life?
……
On the contrary, on Rm. 6:6, “that the body of sin may be destroyed,” a gloss says: “The effect of Baptism is that the old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed, not as though the living flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which it has been bespattered from its birth; but that it may not hurt him, when dead, though it was in him when he was born.” Therefore for the same reason neither are the other** penalties **taken away by Baptism.
I answer that, Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the present life yet it does not take them away during the present life, but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when “this mortal hath put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:54). And this is reasonable. ……
Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in order that, by fighting against concupiscence and** other **defects to which he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory. ……Aquinas considers concupiscence a penalty, a defect - not a personal sin.