Yes, Catholics Believe in Imputation...But Don’t Mess it Up

Text from Fr. Marcelli

Hello, I have decided to publish this as a completely free article for your edification. Please consider becoming a subscriber of this publication (here) or send a $5 one time gift my way (here) if you enjoy the article!

For quite awhile, I have been faulted with having quite a “unique” reading of St. Thomas and the Council of Trent. Based on my study of the works of St. Thomas on Justification, Grace, Sin, and the Priesthood of Christ, I came to this “unique” understanding of the nature of the non-imputation of sin/the remission of sin.

I contended that it was not unique and quite clear from a careful exegesis of the relevant texts from Scholastic theologians (and I would argue Sacred Scripture as well), but as a matter of frustration, there was no author who I could find who clearly and explicitly synthesized these comments in such a way ex professo.

Yet, when I was looking through some Augustinian authors, I found the exact formulation I was looking for, clearly stating the thesis that I have argued for through various articles, videos, etc.

Fr. Marcelli, O.E.S.A in his Institutiones theologicae, vol. 3, pg. 327-331 is in the midst of dealing with a number of different objections against the Catholic view of justification. Particularly, in the first objection he is dealing with those who hold that the formal cause of justification is the non-imputation of our sins. Hence, while in itself these sins (i.e., our lack of conformity to the law) merit eternal punishment, justification either solely consists of (n.b., to my knowledge, nobody holds this and is an unfortunate polemic) or is at least completed in the non-imputation of these sins.

It is important to feel the full weight and tenor of these objections. According to the Tridentine Decree, the effect of justification (whose formal cause is inherent justice) is the remission of sins. To give an analogy from St. Thomas (originally from St. Paul), injustice is as darkness and justice is as light, hence when the light of justice shines within us, the darkness of sin is removed.

Hence, it would seem to offer some sort of contradiction if we were to place any room in for some sort of non-imputation. What would this non-imputation even be if the inherent justice within us has removed all such sin?

Fr. Marcelli answers (as I have said on a number of different cases),

Two things must be considered in any sin, as all know, i.e., culpa (“guilt”) and poena (“punishment”). It can happen that, although culpa is remitted and removed, the poena still remains to be paid. The Scriptural testimonies brought forward declare that blessed is the man who not only the culpa, but also the poena is remitted.

For those not familiar with the terms at hand, this might not mean much, but it is quite significant. The culpa of sin refers to the stain of sin whereby the soul is disordered in consequence of an act of sin. The poena of sin is not some sort of intrinsic disorder of the soul, but a certain relation to punishment that is due the crime. The former is intrinsic, the latter extrinsic.

If one closely considers the distinction between these two concepts, the entire problem falls clearly into place. The culpa of sin demands punishment, but not vice-versa. To give an example, if a man commits a murder, he incurs the culpa of a murderer, which demands the poena of a murderer. Even if you were to clear yourself from any interior stain for your murder, you would still be liable for the punishment of the murderer. Yet, the same cannot be said to occur in the contrary sense. One cannot be justly cleared of the punishment of the murderer without the removal of the interior stain. But, since these are distinct concepts, this interior renovation does not at all imply that the punishment has been removed.

WIth this out of the way, how does this bring us any closer to solving the antinomy? How does Fr. Marcelli’s answer (drawn from Ss. Augustine and Thomas) help us avoid erring in so central a question?

In order to understand this, we must understand what is meant by sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is some sort of internal form that makes us just. It is something that is infused within us by the Holy Spirit. It is this that the Council of Trent teaches is the form of our justification. Since it is an internal form that makes us just, what does this imply? A form and its privation cannot exist within the same subject. An eye is either blind or seeing, not both. So, when the justice is infused within us, the opposite is removed. Where there is light, there is no darkness. This is what is called the remissio peccati.

If we remember what was said above about the relationship between poena and culpa, the solution should be evident. Culpa is an intrinsic disorder of the soul, poena is merely an obligation to punishment. The former is removed by an intrinsic form, the latter is removed by gracious forgiveness, looking over the former offense. Hence, the remissio peccati happens by sanctifying grace, driving our the darkness of sin by the light of grace, the latter happens by non-imputation, forgiving the punishment.

It is for this reason that the distinction mentioned by Fr. Marcelli (and clear in St. Thomas) is so necessary. When we read texts in Sacred Scripture such as “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not impute his sin,” (Rom. 4:7-8) we have to ask ourselves the question, are they talking about the non-imputation of culpa or poena?

God says “I will not acquit the wicked” (Ex. 23:7) and that “He who justifies the wicked... [is] an abomination to the Lord,” (Prov. 17:15) pronouncing woe on “those who call evil good.” (Is. 5:20) Bl. Moses states that God “will by no means clear the guilty,” (Ex. 34:7) which is also stated by Nahum, “the Lord will by no means clear the guilty.” (Nah. 1:3) Yet, the merciful forgiveness of past faults is virtuous, for Bl. Moses states that God will forgive “iniquity and transgression and sin” in the same passage quoted above. St. Paul states that God is “He who justifies the ungodly.” (Rom. 4:5)

This very order between culpa and poena seems evident in the Scriptural text and is in accord with right reason. God is just by being the justifier, he is merciful by his forgiveness. Hence, he both makes godly he who is ungodly and forgives the penitent. Yet, since culpa implies poena, he will never hesitate to punish he who has culpa, but the contrary is not the case. He removes the culpa by grace, and removes the poena by forgiveness.

This seems also to be the doctrine of St. Augustine in the following passage,

Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: not those in whom no sins have been found, but those whose sins are covered. Their sins are covered over, they are out of sight, they are done away with. If God has covered our sins, he does not want to see them or be aware of them; if he does not want to be aware of them, he does not want to punish them; if he does not want to punish them, he does not want to convict us, he wants not commination but commiseration.

Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. You must not interpret this statement that our sins are covered over to mean that they are still there, still alive. Why, then, did the psalmist say that sins are covered? Because they are thrust out of sight. What would it mean for God to look at our sins? To punish our sins…for God to look at our sins is the same thing as to punish them. (Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, n. 9)