Powers of the Soul and Saint Thomas

[TantumErgo90]

Saint Thomas says in the Summa that

“The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth.”

The powers of the soul are: Memory, will, and Intellect. When Saint Thomas talks about Original Sin and Human Nature he says that the second good of Nature were weakened and that the third was totally destroyed. But he says that the first (see above quote about the first)

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin.

. However, in the Baltimore Catechism it says that

Our nature was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left in us a strong inclination to evil.

Does that not contradict what Saint Thomas said about the first good of human nature and how it was not diminished or destroyed?

 

[TantumErgo90]

The new CCC says that our “natural powers” were wounded which follows along with the Baltimore Catechism. I"m totally confused.

 

[Formosus]

The catechism could be using nature in a different sense then St. Thomas, or St. Thomas is just wrong in this case.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi TantumErgo,

I think your answer is a little bit further along in the same Question (#85), specifically Article 3:

As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (81, 2); so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature.

. . . in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; . . .

these are . . . wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent’s sin. But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin. . . these . . . wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, (and) the will hardened to evil. . .

It seems that the powers are perfectly intact, *i.e.*the ability. These powers are differentiated by their object, the object of the intellect being the truth, and the object of the will be the good. So the intellect still apprehends truth (considered as a transcendental property of being) and the will still inclines to the good (again, a property of being). BUT, they now operate imperfectly because they can be disordered. For instance, the will can incline to merely *an apparent *good.

As an analogy one might say that we still have our eyesight (intellect) and we still have our will (our bow and arrow), and we still can hit a target. . . but sometimes its the wrong target.

By the way, when you talk about the powers of the soul above, you are limiting yourself to the powers of the rational soul. There are other powers, I believe, but just not appropriate to your question.

What do you think?
VC

 

[TantumErgo90]

That makes a lot of sense. The “powers of the soul” are intact (they weren’t diminished or destroyed) but things our placed in there way to inhibit them from doing good? So, the diminishing of the Good of Human Nature #2 and the destruction of the Good of Human Nature #3 prevent the Good of Human Nature #1 to work properly, is that right? Here is the relevant quote

The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.

 

[Katholish]

Another, more common way of putting it is that the nature remains unchanged, but the conditition of that nature in the world has changed.

For instance, a man’s nature does not change when gets into a terrible car accident and losses his legs. his condition, on the other hand, certainly does change.

We say that man has a “fallen nature” but what we mean is that man’s nature is in a fallen condition. Unlike many Protestants who actually believe man’s nature changed, Catholics only believe in a conditional change.