184. Sin, Acts, and Omission: The Definition of Sin

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Fifth Article: Whether Sin Requires an Act #

• Central Question: Can one sin without performing any action?
• Initial Objection: Every sin seems to require some act, since merit requires an act, and sin relates to vice as merit relates to virtue
• Apparent Counterexample: James 4:17 states “the man knowing to do the good and not doing it, it’s a sin for him”—yet omission involves no positive act
• Core Problem: How can we reconcile the necessity of the will’s act in sin with the reality of sins of omission?

The Sixth Article: The Definition of Sin #

• Definition Under Scrutiny: Augustine defines sin as “something said or done or desired against the eternal law”
• Critical Issue: Each element of the definition faces objections
• Central Insight: Thomas distinguishes between the material component (voluntary act) and the formal component (disorder contrary to law)

Sins of Omission: The Key Problem #

• Two Traditional Views:

  1. Every omission involves either an interior act (e.g., willing not to go to church) or an exterior act (occupying oneself with other things that prevent the obligatory act)
  2. Omission can occur without any act—merely by failing to perform what is obligatory

• The Distinction of Per Se vs. Per Accidens:

  • An act may be per se (directly) related to the omission—when one directly wills not to perform the obligatory act
  • An act may be per accidens (incidentally) related—when one’s act prevents the obligatory act without that being the direct intention (e.g., staying up late leads to missing Matins)
  • Judgment should be made according to what is per se, not per accidens

• Thomas’s Resolution: Both views contain partial truth. Sin of omission sometimes involves an act (per se), sometimes does not require an act to be properly constituted as sin, but when caused by voluntary choice, requires at least an interior act of the will (not necessarily simultaneous with the omission)

Key Arguments #

Argument from Merit (Supporting the View That Sin Requires an Act) #

• Merit is compared to virtue; sin is compared to vice
• Merit cannot exist without some act (as Aristotle says, “the crown is not given except to one who has competed”)
• By proportion, sin cannot exist without some act
• Tool of Dialectic Used: Analogy of proportions (likeness of ratios)

Argument from Voluntariness #

• Augustine states in On Free Judgment: every sin must be voluntary
• If something is not voluntary, it is not a sin
• Nothing can be voluntary unless it is an act of the will
• Therefore, every sin must have some act

Argument from Omission (Counter-argument) #

• James 4:17: “the man knowing to do the good and not doing it, it’s a sin for him”
• To not do something does not imply a positive act
• Yet failure to do what is obligatory (e.g., honor father and mother) is clearly sinful
• Therefore, sin can exist without an act

Thomas’s Analysis of Affirmative Precepts #

• Affirmative precepts (e.g., “Honor thy father and mother”) command positive action
• These precepts obligate always in intention, but not always in execution
• One sins by omission only at that time when one is bound to perform the act
• The sin of omission occurs when one fails to perform the act one is obligated to perform at that time

On the Definition of Sin Against Objections #

Objection 1: “Said or done or desired” implies an act, but not every sin has an act—therefore the definition is inadequate

• Response: Affirmation and negation are reduced to the same genus (as generated and ungenerated in Divine Trinity). Thus “said” and “not said,” “done” and “not done” fall under the same definition.

Objection 2: Augustine says sin is “the will of retaining or pursuing what justice forbids”—why add “said or done”?

• Response: The will is the first cause of sin, but exterior acts pertain to the substance of sin (as they are intrinsically bad, like murder). The definition must include elements pertaining to both.

Objection 3: The definition omits aversion from the suitable end, which Augustine emphasizes elsewhere

• Response: The eternal law “first and chiefly orders man to the end.” Being against eternal law touches upon aversion from the end and consequently all other disorders.

Objection 4: Some things are prohibited because they are bad; they are not bad because prohibited. The definition makes badness depend on law

• Response: This objection confuses positive law with natural law. Every sin is bad because it is disordered according to natural law (which is contained in eternal law), not merely because positive law prohibits it.

Objection 5: Sin is better defined as “against reason” than “against eternal law”

• Response: Theologians define sin in relation to God (eternal law), while philosophers define it in relation to reason. Different sciences have different ways of defining things according to their subject matter.

Important Definitions #

• Sin (ἁμαρτία/peccatum): A bad human act that is voluntary and disordered, contrary to eternal law. It consists formally in opposition to eternal law, materially in a voluntary act.

• Voluntary (voluntarium): Not only acts elicited by the will (such as willing or choosing), but anything within human power to do or not to do. This includes commanded acts (exterior acts ordered by the will).

• Omission (omissio): Failure to perform an act one is obligated to perform. Can occur with or without a causative act, depending on whether the failure is per se or per accidens.

• Per se (per se): Directly, essentially, according to the definition or nature of a thing. When an act is directly related to the omission (e.g., willing not to go to church).

• Per accidens (per accidens): Incidentally, outside the definition of a thing. When an act leads to omission without being directly intended (e.g., staying up late incidentally causes missing Matins).

• Eternal Law (lex aeterna): The divine reason ordering all things; God’s providential governance. The ultimate rule and measure of all human acts.

• Natural Law (lex naturalis): The participation of eternal law in rational creatures; the inclination of human reason toward the good and away from evil according to human nature.

• Commensuration (commensuratio): The proper measure or proportion of an act. Every thing is measured by comparison to some rule; if it diverts from that rule, it lacks proper measure.

• Integral Cause (causa integralis): A complete cause made up of all necessary parts. As Dionysius says: “Good happens from a whole integral cause, but bad from a single defect.”

Examples & Illustrations #

The Quebec Newspaper Rule #

In Quebec, there was a regulation preventing the sale of newspapers until noon on Sundays, supposedly because buying a newspaper would prevent someone from attending Mass. Berquist notes this was a silly rule based on false reasoning—the rule tried to prevent an incidental cause of omission (the desire to read) by restricting the newspaper itself, not addressing the person’s actual obligation or power to attend Mass.

The Irish Woman on the Airplane #

A woman flying on a Friday was served meat and ate it without realizing it was Friday (when abstinence was required). She did not sin because she lacked knowledge and could not have done otherwise without knowing the relevant fact. Her ignorance removed culpability.

The Fourth Commandment: Honoring Father and Mother #

Unlike most commandments which are negative (“Thou shalt not murder”), the fourth is affirmative—it commands a positive act. Simply refraining from harming one’s parents does not satisfy the obligation; one must actively honor them. Failure to honor is a sin of omission, not merely a failure to refrain from harm. John Paul II exemplified this by praying for his mother’s repose, calling it “filial adoration.”

The Military Inspection Analogy #

In military academy inspections, everything must be perfect—shoes shined, brass polished, gun cleaned. A single defect causes failure. This illustrates Dionysius’s principle: merit requires an integral cause (all parts good), while demerit requires only a single defect. One cannot achieve merit by doing most things well; all must be done well. But one achieves demerit by failing in one area.

The German Army’s Drain Cleaning #

German soldiers in WWII, expecting inspection, would clean and shine even the drains. Yet they still failed inspection. This illustrates the demanding nature of integral causality and the difficulty of achieving complete perfection.

Sitting Up and Rising (The Obligation Context) #

When Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of Churchill for not standing when a woman entered the room, this reflects a cultural obligation to perform a specific action at the appropriate time. The obligation is not general but determined to a particular moment and context.

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Can sin exist without any act? #

Answer: Yes, in the case of omission. However, this requires careful distinction. One can sin by merely failing to do what one is obligated to do, even without performing a positive act. But when the omission proceeds from a voluntary cause (something within one’s power), that cause must be voluntary—i.e., involve at least an interior act of the will, even if not simultaneous with the omission itself.

Q2: How is the sin of omission sinful if it involves no act? #

Answer: The omission itself is not an act but a negation. However, the omission is voluntary and thus sinful because it proceeds from a cause or occasion that is voluntary and lies within the person’s power. The voluntariness comes from the person’s power to act or not act, not from a simultaneous positive act.

Q3: What is the relationship between an act and an omission in determining sin? #

Answer: An act may be per se to the omission (directly related, as when one wills not to go to church) or per accidens (incidentally related, as when one’s desire to stay up leads to missing Matins). Judgment should be made according to what is per se. The per se act pertains directly to the notion of the sin, while per accidens causes are accidental to the sin’s definition.

Q4: Is Augustine’s definition of sin adequate? #

Answer: Yes. Augustine’s definition captures both the material element (“something said or done or desired”) and the formal element (“against eternal law”). The material element pertains to the substance of the human act; the formal element pertains to the notion of badness. Together they define sin completely.

Q5: Why should sin be defined by eternal law rather than reason? #

Answer: Theologians define sin in relation to God because theology’s subject is God and all things in relation to God. Philosophers define sin as contrary to reason because philosophy considers human acts according to their rationality. Different sciences define things according to their proper subject matter and way of knowing. Additionally, the eternal law encompasses more than human reason can grasp—many things exceed human reason but are commanded by God.

Notable Quotes #

“Every sin is, must be, voluntary, so much that if it is not voluntary, it’s not a sin.” — Augustine, On Free Judgment

“The man knowing to do the good and not doing it, it’s a sin for him.” — James 4:17

“Good happens from a whole integral cause, but bad from a single defect.” — Dionysius (cited by Thomas)

“More things are required for the good than for the bad.” — Thomas Aquinas’s gloss on Dionysius

“The voluntary is not only because it comes under some act of the will, but because it is in our power, that it come to be, or not come to be.” — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book III

“By comparison to the end, sin is defiant.” — Augustine, On Free Judgment

“All human diversity is in using things that should be enjoyed and enjoying things that should be used.” — Augustine, 83 Questions