Romans 7:14-25

[Ginger2]

How do Catholics view the following passage?

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.

 

[lak611]

Here is a link to the Haydock Commentary, which is Catholic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I can give a personal opinion about the passage, although not authoritative.

At the fall the soul and the body’s perfect communion were ruptured. Hence, the body no longer obeys the will. In the sense that the body strays from the will – (a wandering) αμαρτια – it is sin. But the sin is against the one who’s body it is. St. Paul issues the command of good will, and the body can not comply. This weakness, or infirmity is generally called concupisence since it is NOT a sin on the part of the person – because they will what is good.

St. Paul does not sin when his body disobeys him, but he is miserable. etc.

What interests you about this passage and why?

 

[Ginger2]

I think you meant to write concupiscent. Is that correct?

Your answer is very close to what I believe that passage means.

However, the link I was given sounded as if he meant Paul was occassionally tempted but he never gave into the sin. I totally disagree with that interpretation. Everyone ocassionally sins. We don’t want to, but we fall short.

I think Paul is saying that even though we might stumble now and again, God keeps loving us.

And, if we admit that we make mistakes and do not try to justify ourselves by saying God’s word is wrong, then we are still blameless in God’s eyes.

Many people try to justify their behavior by mis-interpreting the Bible or saying the Bible is flawed writings of superstitious men.

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 Jo 1:10).

People need to understand that turning away God is not going to alleviate their sin or guilt, instead it adds a greater sin to bear.

Why this passage is of interest to me is a long story. A public forum, that invites debate and criticism, is not the place to discuss it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I do find a distinction between the words.
I have spelled it as seen in Romans 7:8.
It is a Latin word meaning with-desire.

To be quite clear, Catholics do not equate concupiscence with sin one is guilty of. The word itself refers to a state, not an action.
Concupiscent may refer to the nuance of choosing – eg. lust, so I wouldn’t want to use that version as it might confuse what the scriptures actually said.

Concupiscence is escalated to concupiscent by the will and the sin of transgression, iniquity, and perhaps lawlessness. (I need to think about that last one.)

St. Paul is clearly distinguishing between an act (I will) and a state (my flesh) at this point in his writing. I think we should too.

I also think, from your response, that a caution is in order.
St. Paul is a lawyer, a Pharisee, and extremely detail oriented.
Many of his points are very narrow and lawyerly.

2Peter3:16 – the last verses; some things St. Paul says are hard to understand.

Right now, St. Paul is speaking of himself at an unspecified point in his life – he has not yet applied his argument to anything else.
Eventually, Paul will admit that he personally is guilty of Stephen’s murder – a sin – but that has nothing to do (guilt-wise) with the present case.

The quote brought in from John, is not a personal statement – nor one applied to all men – but is one which refers to a group ( we ).
There is another group – them – unspecified.

It clearly does not apply to Jesus who was made to be sin from without – eg. he bore our sins.

Nor does the statement in John apply, necessarily, to individuals.
‘We’ can be a collective sin of a community, or group, which does not mean every member of the group ‘eg. sons of men’ sin in the same way.

The USA went into IRAQ, can be used as WE went into IRAQ.
It does not mean every USA citizen, but the responsible parties in the USA did the act. So too, John means at least, that the responsible parties of our group are guilty of sin.

To go the extra step and say it applies to every person requires more logic, and Paul’s writing is very appropriate to understanding what the extents and limits of the doctrine are.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

p.s. my point about IRAQ is narrow and lawyerly, I am not judging the sinfulness of the act.

 

[Ginger2]

Did Paul commit an act that would normally be considered a sin?

Or

Did an evil thought cross his mind, but he resisted and did not act out on the thought?

 

[davidv]

Did Paul commit an act that would normally be considered a sin?

Or

Did an evil thought cross his mind, but he resisted and did not act out on the thought?

Seems to me that the answer is in Paul’s words.

For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.

Sins of omission as well as commission.

 

[banjo]

Here is what might be referred to as a summary of Rm 7:14-25 taken from the Navarre Bible:

As can be seen from the use of the present tense, the “I” in vv. 14-25 is no longer Paul before his conversion, but rather after it: and it also stands for all mankind redeemed by Christ’s grace. Here we have a vivid description of the interior struggle which everyone experiences, Christians included. These words are in line with something we are all well aware of: in our bodies there is a “law”, an inclination, which fights against the law of our spirit (cf. v. 23), that is, against the spiritual good which God’s grace causes us to desire. The very expression “the law of sin which dwells in my members” emphasizes how strenuously our senses, appetites and passions try to reject the dictates of the spirit; however, the spirit can gain the upper hand. The Church’s teaching is that Baptism does not take away a person’s inclination to sin (fomes peccati), concupiscence: he or she still experiences a strong desire for earthly or sensual pleasure. “Since it [concupiscence] is left to provide a trial, it has no power to injure those who do not consent and who, by the grace of Christ Jesus, manfully resist” (Council of Trent, De pecatto originali, can. 5).
The Jews were able to keep the Law of Moses only through the help of divine grace granted them in anticipation of the merits of Christ. Without grace they were like slaves, “sold under sin” (v. 14). After Christ, a person who rejects the Redemption is in a similar position, for “in the state of corrupt nature man needs grace to heal his nature and enable him to avoid sin entirely. In this present life this healing is brought about in his mind [the spiritual part of man]: the carnal appetite is not completely healed. Hence the Apostle (Rm 7:25) says of the person healed by grace, ‘I serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.’ In this state a person can avoid mortal sin …] but he cannot avoid all venial sin, due to the corruption of his sensual appetite” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 109, a. 8).
Hence our need for God’s help if we are to persevere in virtue; hence also our need to make a genuine personal effort to be faithful. The St.* Pius V Catechism*, when dealing with the fact that even after Baptism man is subject to various disabilities, including concupiscence, explains that God has willed that death and suffering, which originate in sin, remain part of our lot, thereby enabling us to attain mystical and real union with Christ, who chose to undergo suffering and death; and, likewise, we still have concupiscence, and experience bodily weakness etc. “that in them we may have the seed and material of virtue from which we shall hereafter receive a more abundant harvest of glory and more ample rewards” (II, 2, 48).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Did Paul commit an act that would normally be considered a sin?

Or

Did an evil thought cross his mind, but he resisted and did not act out on the thought?

Good question.
This is difficult to know. First of all, we aren’t 100% sure why he changes all the sudden to the first person: I.
He does define ‘I’ not personally, but generically as ‘flesh and blood’. (No spirit is defined).

Yet, St. Paul speaks of the will in this passage as well.

The answer might be ‘both’.
It is possible for the body, which includes the imagination to produce thoughts/temptations which would normally be sinful – if one purposely brought these images to mind.

Or again, people often experience dreams which are not within their control – and which produce physical effects in the body, which are not meant to happen outside of marriage. The body acts out what the soul does not wish.

Or again, a child inside a mother can be miscarried due to the body not doing as the mind wills. A sickness, or death results to an innocent life. The body acts out something against the will, because the body is no longer under perfect control of the spirit anymore.

Both of these acts might “normally” be sinful, but not without the consent of the will. My body is me. It isn’t a seperate house for me to dwell in – it is me, a unity of spirit and flesh – form and matter.

Since St. Paul specifically says “I do not will it” – he is resisting the choice, but not the act. His body is still “him”, and he does what he hates. We have, in the flesh, become evil – because our bodies are missing someone dwelling inside of them, the holy spirit. And an empty house gets filled with demons and it wanders (αμαρτια) which one of the words translated ‘sin’.

The body can also become exhausted or fail in other ways which hinder our ability to do the good we wish to do, or are required to do. (St. Paul is mostly speaking of the ability to fulfil the law – and the written law for him is the old testament Mosaic law.)