The "quieting of concupiscence" (remedium concupiscentiae) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. Casti Connubii §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?
Asked
Active
Viewed 707 times
0
-
This 2006 paper A Postscript to the 'Remedium Concupiscentiae" by Monsignor Cormac Burke published in The Thomist 70 (2006): 481-536 looks promising. Another is this 2018 book chapter The intelligibility of Aquinas’ account of marriage as remedium concupiscentiae in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, 1-9. – GratefulDisciple Jun 19 '20 at 20:18
-
Yes, I just read the warning for one of his books that in fact contains that paper at isidore.co – GratefulDisciple Jun 19 '20 at 20:30
-
@GratefulDisciple Yes, I've seen that before. He unfortunately thinks the "remedy of concupiscence" is an outdated theological term and no longer an end of matrimony; cf. ch. 8 "An R.I.P. for the Remedium Concupiscentiae" of his The Theology of Marriage: Personalism, Doctrine and Canon Law: "goodbye and good riddance to the concept that marriage serves in itself as a 'remedy of concupiscence" (p. xxvi), contra point 2.2 in my answer, that engaging in the act according to reason can actually decrease concupiscence. – Geremia Jun 19 '20 at 20:32
-
@NigelJ Concupiscence isn't a feeling; it's not pleasure, pain, etc., things which are morally neutral in themselves. Concupiscence is an "Insubordination of man's desires to the dictates of reason". – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 17:50
1 Answers
2
St. Thomas describes how it works in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 3 (on how matrimony confers grace) ad 4:
A remedy can be employed against concupiscence in two ways.
- on the part of concupiscence by repressing it in its root, and thus matrimony affords a remedy by the grace given therein.
- on the part of its act, and this in two ways:
1. by depriving the act to which concupiscence inclines of its outward shamefulness, and this is done by the marriage blessings which justify carnal concupiscence;
2. by hindering the shameful act, which is done by the very nature of the act because concupiscence, being satisfied by the conjugal act, does not incline so much to other wickedness. For this reason the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:9): "It is better to marry than to burn." For though the works congenial to concupiscence are in themselves of a nature to increase concupiscence,* yet in so far as they are directed according to reason they repress concupiscence, because like acts result in like dispositions and habits.
*i.e., engaging in the act makes them want to engage in it more, like how eating makes one want to eat more (if not restrained by reason)
Summary:
Matrimony confers graces to allow one to practice
- continence (with the help of matrimonial grace).
- the marriage act without sin, because of the
1. marriage goods (sacrament, children, fidelity)
2. directing the act according to reason,
which honestant the marriage act (justify and dignify it).
St. Augustine says married couples use evil well; they use the concupiscence in the act (an evil) for a good purpose.
Geremia
- 39,167
- 4
- 47
- 103
-
Augustine and Aquinas appear to contradict each other somewhat. Does adding the point from Augustine support your Thomasian answer, or is this provided as a contrasting view? – KorvinStarmast Jun 20 '20 at 15:37
-
@KorvinStarmast "Augustine and Aquinas appear to contradict each other somewhat." I don't see any contradiction. In #2.2, St. Thomas says "repress concupiscence" not "eliminate concupiscence". Only continence completely avoids the evil of concupiscence in the marriage act (cf. his ranking of the degrees of chastity). – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 17:52
-
If I am reading you clearly, they both consider sex to be fundamentally dirty or bad, and sex requires something else to mitigate that. Is that about right? – KorvinStarmast Jun 20 '20 at 18:15
-
@KorvinStarmast "they both consider sex to be fundamentally dirty or bad" No, they're not Manichean or Albigensian dualists (who thought the body was evil), nor are they Pelagian (Pelagius denied concupiscence in the act; cf. St. Augustine's work against Julian, a Pelagian). The act itself is not evil; the concupiescence that accompanies the act in fallen man is what is evil. – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 18:35
-
@KorvinStarmast St. Augustine and St. Thomas realize the marriage act is not always sinful and can be meritorious, but it must be "excused" by the marriage goods (because of the evil of concupiscence inherent in the act; this wasn't the case before the Fall). – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 18:36
-
@KorvinStarmast In "Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?," St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine's City of God xiv, 26: "We must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. All the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body." – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 18:41
-
@KorvinStarmast And virginity would have been equally good as marriage (ibid. ad 4): "intercourse would have been without prejudice to virginal integrity; this would have remained intact, as it does in the menses. And just as in giving birth the mother was then relieved, not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity; so in conceiving, the union was one, not of lustful desire, but of deliberate action". – Geremia Jun 20 '20 at 18:45
-