Concupiscence is human nature?

[fhansen]

I had always thought it was not human nature but a result of original sin, a corruption. But New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia states otherwise (if I’m reading correctly)

“it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.”
“The first parents were free from concupiscence,… they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God… In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin 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 and supernatural gifts and graces,”

If I am reading that correctly, it states that concupiscence is human nature, and the only reason Adam and Eve weren’t in that state (their normal state, concupiscence!) at their origin is because of God’s graces freeing them from it (until they fell). Thus concupiscence… isn’t a product of original sin, but rather the removal of our freedom from concupiscence is the result of original sin.

Good golly, I had no idea. Have I understood this correctly? I’m certain I have, I just am so surprised that I didn’t know this, that I need it to be confirmed for me. But doesn’t that mean our natural state is disordered?

newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

This just means that, left to our own devices, apart from God (the state Adam left humanity in), we don’t have self-mastery-complete control over ourselves. Because we’re now God, for all practical purposes, deciding our morality for ourselves, we can easily be misled by the desires of the flesh; we’re not capable of determining human morality; that’s the province of God alone. And by disobeying Him Adam became divided in himself, according to the catechism; his God-given conscience, informed by the natural law, was dimmed and obscured, no longer on the throne-and from there any and all behaviors become possible, all vying for our wills to give the nod of approval.

We require grace; we require communion with God, in order to achieve moral integrity. The Law, via the Old Covenant, was meant to show us what moral integrity “looks like”, and to test us to see if we could achieve it on our own, but the Law, itself was incapable of making us just-so it’s real purpose was to demonstrate-or teach- mankind through the history of the Jews that we cannot be just on our own, apart from God; we miss the mark, failing miserably at fulfilling the Law. With God we’re molded into beings who love as He does, and this, love, fulfills the Law-the only right way.

 

[mardukm]

The animal appetites are part of human nature as God created it. The confusion here is the idea that “animal appetites” = “concupiscence.” That is a mistake. Concupiscence is the tendency to surrender to the animal eppetites. The two notions are distinct.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fhansen]

The animal appetites are part of human nature as God created it. The confusion here is the idea that “animal appetites” = “concupiscence.” That is a mistake. Concupiscence is the tendency to surrender to the animal eppetites. The two notions are distinct.

Blessings,
Marduk

Right. Natural appetites are normal desires while concupiscence is disordered desire: natural appetites without proper control.

 

[SighGuy]

Thanks for all of the (name removed by moderator)ut, friends. I think I have it, now. I was hung up on the word “nature”, mostly.

 

[SighGuy]

The New Advent article even clarifies it, had I read it carefully enough (emphasis mine).

In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin 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 and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom.

I observed only the top bolded section, indicating that the graces were not human nature- thus my example of my own creation being deprived of those graces held true, that it could not be a corruption since they were never due to human nature anyway.

But the second part suggests human nature was deprived of this preternatural gift. One cannot deprive human nature of something nature does not possess… thus, though it was not due to human nature, integral, it was indeed attached and part of human nature, and the ripping of it away from human nature is thus the wound, revealing a concupiscent creature, needing God (the hidden state, so to speak).