197. Sin as Cause of Sin: The Four Causes

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem: Can Sin Cause Sin? #

• Objection: Sin is imperfect and evil by definition, so it cannot be a cause in the way perfect things produce effects
• Objection: The four kinds of causes (material, formal, efficient, final) do not apply to sin
• Key insight: Sin must be distinguished between its aspect as an act (which can have causal power) and its aspect as disorder (which is a privation)

Thomas’s Solution: Four Types of Causation #

1. Efficient Cause (both per se and per accidens) #

• Per se: One sin directly causes another through its action
• Per accidens (removens prohibens): One sin removes an impediment to another sin
  • Example: Mortal sin causes loss of grace, which removes the restraint from committing further sin
  • The remover of a prohibiting cause is itself a cause (though accidental)
• Berquist illustrates with the example of a ceiling falling: gravity is the per se cause, but removing the pillar that holds it up is the per accidens cause

2. Material Cause #

• Sin has matter “about which” (not “from which”)
• Example: In the case of Falstaff’s fornication committed for theft, fornication is the material aspect of the sin
• The material cause is present even though matter and form are typically associated with natural bodies

3. Final Cause #

• One sin is committed for the sake of another sin’s end
• Example: A man might commit theft to obtain jewels to give to a woman, with the ultimate end being seduction (fornication)
• The end gives the form in moral matters
• The destruction of the woman (the intended seduction) becomes a cause of the theft

4. Formal Cause #

• The end/purpose becomes the formal cause of the sin
• Example: In Falstaff’s case, theft is formally the sin when fornication is materially committed for its sake
• This is possible because “the end gives the form in moral matters” (as stated earlier in Thomas’s treatment)

Methodology: Dividing Causes #

• Berquist emphasizes that understanding division into four requires first dividing into two or three
• Division can happen different ways:
  • One and three: Act (form, end, mover) vs. Potency (matter) — important for understanding God as pure act
  • Two and two: (Matter and mover) vs. (Form and end)
  • Multiple successive divisions eventually clarify all four
• Example: When dividing the ten Aristotelian categories, Thomas divides into three, then subdivides those into two or three again
• Avoiding premature attempts to understand “four at once” prevents confusion

Responses to Objections #

First Objection: Sin is defined as bad/disordered #

• Response: Sin has a dual nature:
  • Insofar as it is disordered, it is bad and cannot be a per se cause
  • Insofar as it is an act, it has something good (at least appearing good as an end)
  • Therefore, on the side of the act, there can be both final and efficient causation

Second Objection: Only perfect things can reproduce themselves #

• Response: Sin is imperfect by moral imperfection (disorder), but on the side of the act, it can have “the perfection of nature”
• Example: Fornication, though morally imperfect, has the natural perfection of an act that can lead to other acts
• The act’s perfection of nature allows it to be a cause

Third Objection: This leads to infinite regress #

• Response: Not every cause of sin is itself a sin
• One arrives at a first sin (e.g., Adam and Eve) whose cause is not another sin
• This prevents infinite regress ("non procedit ad infinitum")

Key Arguments #

Structure of the Response #

• Thomas presents the response in a notably elegant threefold structure (which delights Berquist)
• He shows that something external can be a cause of sin in three ways: by moving reason, by moving sense desire, or by removing impediments
• He then applies the four causes framework, showing sin can be a cause in all four ways

On the Distinction Between Act and Disorder #

• The key to resolving all objections lies in recognizing that sin has two aspects:
  • The actus (the act itself), which retains the perfection of whatever type of act it is
  • The inordinatio (the disorder/privation), which is the moral evil
• Evil/disorder cannot be a per se cause (as Dionysius taught), but the act aspect can be

The Principle of Per Accidens Causation #

• Non-being cannot be a per se cause, but can be a per accidens cause through removal of impediment
• This principle is crucial for understanding how one sin causes another through loss of grace

Important Definitions #

• Sin: An act that is both disordered (lacking proper direction from reason and divine law) and voluntary
• Inordinatio (Latin): The disorder aspect of sin; the privation of proper order
• Actus (Latin): The act aspect of sin; the performance itself which retains natural perfection
• Per se cause: A cause that produces an effect through its own direct power
• Per accidens cause: A cause that produces an effect accidentally, often through removal of impediment
• Removens prohibens (Latin): The remover of that which prohibits; a form of per accidens causation
• Tripliciter (Latin): In three ways (used by Berquist when noting Thomas’s elegant threefold structure)

Examples & Illustrations #

Falstaff in The Merry Wives of Windsor #

• Falstaff commits fornication (materially) for the sake of stealing money from the wives
• Theft is the formal cause (the purpose that gives form)
• Fornication is the material aspect
• This demonstrates how the end becomes the form in moral matters
• Berquist notes this is one of Shakespeare’s good-natured comedies, illustrating how dramatists teach virtue by making the lustful man ridiculous

The Ceiling and the Pillar #

• Gravity is the per se efficient cause of the ceiling falling
• Removing the pillar is a per accidens efficient cause
• Both are truly causes, though in different ways

Loss of Grace #

• Mortal sin causes loss of sanctifying grace
• Grace (or charity) is what holds one back from sin
• The first sin is thus a per accidens cause of the second sin, by removing the prohibition (the restraint)

Notable Quotes #

“Sin is not able to be a cause of sin, right? Therefore it does not have an exterior cause.” — Objection from the text

“The will is the cause of sin.” — Augustine (cited as foundational principle)

“As has been said above, the inward cause of sin is both the will as what? As perfecting, completing the act of sin, and reason as regards the lack of the suitable rule, and the sense desire as inclining.” — Thomas Aquinas’s tripartite response

“Evil is not an efficient cause. But it’s infirm and impotent.” — Dionysius (cited by Thomas)

“The end gives the form in moral matters.” — Thomas Aquinas

Questions Addressed #

Main Question: Can sin be the cause of sin? #

• Apparent problem: Sin is imperfect and evil, so how can it be a cause?
• Resolution: Distinguish between sin as act (which has natural perfection) and sin as disorder (which is a privation). The act can be a cause through all four types of causation.

How can the four causes apply to sin? #

• Efficient cause: Per se (direct action) or per accidens (removal of impediment)
• Material cause: Sin has matter “about which” it is committed
• Final cause: One sin committed for the sake of another sin’s end
• Formal cause: The end becomes the formal cause in moral matters

Does this lead to infinite regress? #

• No, because not every cause of sin is itself a sin. The chain terminates at a first sin (e.g., original sin) whose cause is not another sin.

Pedagogical Notes #

• Berquist emphasizes the elegance of Thomas’s threefold and fourfold divisions
• He stresses the importance of not trying to understand “four at once” but rather dividing progressively into two or three
• The connection between Aristotelian causes and Thomistic theology is demonstrated practically
• The methodology of responding to objections by using distinctions found in the body of the article reinforces learning

Connections to Wider Topics #

• This article presupposes the interior and exterior causes of sin discussed in Articles 1-3
• The principle that God cannot be the cause of sin (mentioned as forthcoming in the lecture) depends on understanding sin’s disorder vs. act
• The framework of four causes is foundational to metaphysics and applies across natural philosophy and theology