Catholic Teaching on Concupiscence: Further Information in Consideration of TOB, part 3

Following is my third comment on Dawn's blog (May 25, 2009).

Catholic Teaching on Concupiscence: Further Information in Consideration of TOB, part 2

Following is my second comment on Dawn's blog (May 25, 2009).

Catholic Teaching on Concupiscence: Further Information in Consideration of TOB, part 1

This post, and the several that will follow this one, are intended as an expansion and further fleshing out of the topic of my original June, 2009, post, "Concupiscence, Catholic Teaching on."

This topic continues to be very relevant especially given the ongoing discussion in various internet quarters, sometimes testy, about Christopher West and the popular presentation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

In my above 2009 post, I linked to several comments I had made a few days earlier in discussion threads on Dawn Eden's blog, The Dawn Patrol. I would like to pull out those comments from the depths of the thread netherworld and reproduce them here in the hope that they might be helpful for this ongoing and important discussion. My primary aim is to help illuminate a bit more deeply the important background that is necessary to have understood before a person has a chance at carrying on a fruitful discussion about popular presentations of TOB. This background is the Catholic tradition's teaching about the interior tendency to commit sin (called concupiscence).

Following is my first comment on Dawn's blog (May 25, 2009).

Christopher West on Concupiscence, II

Update: For more and very interesting discussion about Christopher West's talk on Wednesday evening, June 3, check out a new blog, The Linde, over at The Personalist Project. The first speaker of the evening, Dr. Michael Healy, offered a very good commentary on West's talk.


Last night here in West Chester, PA, I attended a talk sponsored by The Personalist Project at which Christopher West spoke. He was the second of two speakers. The first was a former professor of mine at Franciscan University, Dr. Michael Healy. He gave an excellent address on human sexuality according to the thought of Dietrich von Hildebrand.

After this, Christopher West spoke. I thought it was a good talk. After he spoke there was time for Q & A. I asked him a question to clarify what his thoughts are on concupiscence. West answered in such a way as to satisfy me that he does not hold that grace wipes out concupiscence (which would be contrary to the teaching of the Church). In fact, in the course of his talk, he stated that in this life we are never free of the pull of concupiscence.

And so, on the specific topic of concupiscence, I do not think there is a problem with what West personally believes.

During the evening I think I gained an insight into why he can sometimes be taken as teaching problematic things in regard to concupiscence. Just after West stated that in this life we are never free of the pull of concupiscence (which correctly represents Church teaching), he said (and I think the quote is accurate as I took notes), "Christ has set us free from the domination of concupiscence." (emphasis mine) . . . I will come back to this in a moment.

The larger subject of West's talk last night was an overview of the three-stage journey of the human soul on the path to sanctity--a classic theme of Catholic spiritual theology. He spoke about this in the context of his efforts to promote the Theology of the Body because he wanted to emphasize that both John Paul II and Dietrich von Hildebrand had this in common: a firm belief that purity--real purity--is indeed possible (with grace) in this life. How? By staying the course on the lifelong threefold journey to holiness described by spiritual writers as the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. With the ongoing help of grace and our personal cooperation, we truly can be transformed and made pure. This is indeed a wonderfully Catholic understanding and I agree with it fully. This beautiful truth about the interplay of grace and nature in this life--that genuine, personal transformation that makes one holy is possible in this life--is one of those pearls of Christian wisdom that only the Catholic Church seems to have held onto with a full and constant embrace since our savior's return to heaven.

So, why does West's teaching sometimes spur controversy among Catholics on this specific subject of concupiscence? This sometime-misunderstanding I think is rooted in a misreading of what West means when he says things like, "Christ has set us free from the domination of concupiscence."

There is a very significant difference between being freed from concupiscence outright (which West affirmed last night he does not hold as possible in this life), and being freed from the domination of concupiscence. Being freed from being dominated (i.e. easily overwhelmed and overpowered in such a way that one does not seem able to stop temptation from leading quickly into sin) by concupiscence is very much something any Catholic should ardently desire. We should see this as truly possible through an ongoing process of growth in holiness as we walk with Christ in this life. This is the sort of thing--being freed from enslavement to concupiscence--that the journey of the spiritual life through the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways is supposed to bring about in us.

I think it is very possible that when Christopher West claims (correctly) that we can--by the interplay of grace with human freedom--be freed in this life from being dominated by temptations to sin, some people hear this as no different from saying that we can be freed from temptation itself. But West (as I heard him last night) is not saying this. He is saying that there is real hope in the power of grace--if we are open to it and accept the crosses that may come with it--to remove the bondage of being unable to resist the pull of concupiscence toward committing sin. We will never be free in this life from concupiscence itself. But, we can become pure, so that when an enticement to sexual sin arises within us we are not thrown into a frenzy and dominated by it. It is there, but it can no longer have its way. Rather, we can allow it to pass by, not giving it permission to take control of our heart and our will. The temptation of concupiscence whispers to us, "go down this path," but, by grace, we firmly, confidently, peacefully, say in return, "my Savior's Passion has given me the power to say no; I will not go down this path."

Before being made pure--acquiring the virtue of chastity--a person may be in the grip of sin, controlled and easily overpowered by lust when it comes knocking on the door of his soul. But after a long (and always ongoing) process of sanctification, at some point eventually the same person is no longer overpowered by lust, though he is tempted by it for the duration of his life.

As I put my question to West I acknowledged that there is a difference between concupiscence itself (the pull toward sin), and vice. All Christians are called to the hope that Christ's grace can over time and with much prayer gradually strip away our vices (sinful habits). Christopher agreed with this.

This, I believe, is a very sound Catholic understanding of life. To be gradually freed from enslavement to sinful patterns that have become rooted in our lives is a great thing and possible in this life and to be hoped for as we put our trust in Christ. This is true even as we realize that inclinations to sin will still bite at us throughout our life. And at least according to last night's event, I believe it is what Christopher West believes and teaches as well. There may be other critiques of his work that hit their mark. But, as far as concupiscence is concerned, I am satisfied for myself that there are no serious problems with Christopher West.

A concluding remark. West is passionate about his ministry, has a passionate rhetorical style, and strives to speak in a way that is accessible to the average person. I suspect that there may be times in the midst of an exuberant presentation when he is not as clear as perhaps he could be on the important distinction noted above between concupiscence itself--which remains even as grace increases--and the domination of concupiscence over a person--which is rooted out as grace transforms us. The "new man" in Christ is still tempted, but no longer in such a way that he cannot do other than to defile his soul by giving in to sin. He is no longer helpless against temptations. If West ever seems to be unclear or fuzzy on this, please ask him in charity to simply clarify. I think you will find as I did last night that he fully accepts the doctrine of the Church in regard to concupiscence.

A hearty thanks to Jules and Katie van Schaijik for putting together last night's fruitful evening with professor Healy and Christopher West.

Concupiscence, Catholic Teaching On; and Christopher West

In light of recent controversy over the content and style of the public presentations by Catholic lay evangelist, Christopher West, I would like to offer a brief primer on the teaching of the Catholic Church on "concupiscence."

Why am I concerned to address this topic? It is because I am sure that some Catholics can be easily mislead, even if unintentionally, into thinking that something is wrong with them spiritually if they still experience temptations (one type of which stems from concupiscence). This is a mistake that can be harmful and a serious obstacle to spiritual progress. Growth in sanctity can most definitely happen even as temptations to commit sin are still experienced in a person's soul. Temptation is always cause for sober concern, but, with God's help, should never be a cause for panic or despair.

First, some background items. What is concupiscence? Simply put, it is the inclination to sin. Why do we have it? We have concupiscence because of original sin (the fall of Adam and Eve). Concupiscence is not equivalent to original sin, it is a consequence of it. And so it is not a result of our own personal, individual sins--it resides in us at birth because of the wounds inflicted upon human nature by original sin and passed down to all via generation. And this is very important: concupiscence is not itself the same thing as personal sin; to undergo an inclination toward a sinful act is not yet in itself the same thing as committing a sin.

So concupiscence is neither original sin nor personal sin--nor is it a result of personal sin. It is, however, a result of original sin. It is a tendency--a propensity--a leaning toward, sin.

The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines concupiscence as follows:

human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the temporal consequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism, and which produce an inclination to sin.

Why mention this in relation to the teaching of Christopher West? Some intelligent and educated Catholics criticize West's approach for coming across as downplaying the reality and significance of concupiscence. To some, West almost seems to suggest that not only sin, but concupiscence itself, can be overcome in this life, thus restoring man to a subjective state of original innocence, as before the fall.

I have heard West speak in person and listened to a few of his audio recordings, but I am by no means expert in all things West. I do not know whether Christopher West personally believes that concupiscence can be eliminated in this life, but I think it is true that some of his language, presentation style and emphases can together be interpreted as teaching this or something similar. And to the degree that this is the case, this is a problem. (I want to acknowledge as others have that there is no doubt much good has been and continues to be done by West. However, even one who has done much good can still make mistakes and thus be subject to sincere and charitable criticism.)

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches officially about concupiscence. . .

[Council of Trent] The holy Council, however, professes and thinks that concupiscence or the inclination to sin remains in the baptised. Since it is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but vigorously resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ. Rather, "one who strives lawfully will be crowned." Of this concupiscence which the apostle occasionally calls "sin" the holy Council declares: The Catholic Church has never understood that it is called sin because it would be sin in the true and proper sense in those who have been reborn, but because it comes from sin and inclines to sin. If anyone thinks the contrary, anathema sit. [Decree on original sin, no. 5; the year 1546]

And further, the following is a condemned proposition (i.e. the Church formally declares this to be wrong):

[Condemned Propositions of Michael de Bay]
The integrity at the beginning of creation was not a gratuitous exaltation of human nature but its natural condition.
[Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus; Pius V, 1567]

Note: this proposition is wrong. This deceptively small item is quite significant in itself. Why? Because it indicates that what the Catholic theological tradition refers to as 'integrity' (the perfect control of the emotions and passions by reason [note: this is not the same as the absence of emotions and passions, but, rather the harmony of these with all that pertains to knowledge and reason]), while part of mankind's original state, was not strictly speaking natural to man even before the fall. I'll repeat this another way because of its importance: integrity--the fully harmonious and agreeable relationship between emotion and reason which Adam and Eve originally possessed but then lost for themselves and for their progeny because of their sin--was itself a gift from God that stretched beyond and perfected what human nature was capable of on its own without His assistance.

Catholic theology delineates three states or categories of gifts and attributes that mankind originally possessed as first created by God (i.e. man's condition before sin entered the world). These are three: 1. nature, 2. preternature, and 3. supernature. These roughly can be thought of as 1. the state of created human beings according to all the powers and conditions inherent to their own essence as human beings, apart from any special help from God beyond what He built into human nature itself; 2. human nature with some added assistance from God to "stretch" it beyond what it could do on its own, but in a way that is nicely harmonious with and complementary to its own merely natural powers (preternature completes or perfects nature); 3. human nature plus special help from God enabling it to do things or to exist in ways completely above and unlike what human nature itself could ever attain to in any way by itself.

Here are examples to help clarify:

nature: digestion; sight; movement; language ability

preternature (nature completed): integrity (absence of concupiscence); freedom from suffering; immortality
(effects of losing, see CCC 400)

supernature: sanctifying grace (the life of God present in the human soul making man friends with God and able to live with Him in eternal life); miraculous healing
(effects of losing, see Gn 2:17; Rom 6:23; CCC 399)


With this in mind, here is a quote from the Catechism that talks about the effects of original sin:

[Original sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. [CCC 405]

The significant point here in all this, in the context of some confusion over what Christopher West really says and means, is this: concupiscence, not in itself the same as sin, is a result of the loss of the preternatural gifts (see above)--not a result of the loss of supernatural gifts. This loss is a consequence of original sin. Sanctifying grace (regained by Baptism and then strengthened by prayer, the sacraments, and charity) restores the loss of the supernatural gift of God's life to man's soul. However, sanctifying grace does not restore the preternatural gifts. Man still suffers. He still dies a physical death. And, he is tempted to sin because of concupiscence.

It is a mistake to think that sanctifying grace--which increases in the soul as a person grows in holiness--removes concupiscence. It does not. It restores that divine life to the soul which makes it possible for the human person to live in heaven. But temptation, in this life, will remain as a trial and a test--just as physical death and suffering remain. Even the most holy saint will still die, still suffer, and still be tempted. His temptation, however, need not lead to sin. Sanctifying grace helps the child of God to better deal with the temptations of concupiscence so that they no longer lead him into sin, though temptations still occur.

For more detail on this, see my further comments on Dawn Eden's blog here, here, and here.

And I will close this post with a final quote from the Catechism:

Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.
[CCC 1426]