Editing Concupiscence (section)

==Comparison of the Catholic view with Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican views==
{{Further|Theology of Martin Luther#Simul justus et peccator|Original sin#Criticism|Total depravity}}

The primary difference between [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] theology and [[Lutheran]], [[Reformed tradition|Reformed]] and [[Anglican]] theologies on the issue of concupiscence is whether it can be classified as sin by its own nature. The [[Catholic Church]] teaches that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself.  Rather, it is "the tinder for sin" which "cannot harm those who do not consent" ([[Catechism of the Catholic Church|CCC]] 1264).<ref>''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', New York: Doubleday Publications, 1997</ref>

This difference is intimately tied with the different traditions on [[original sin]]. Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican theology holds that the original [[Wiktionary:prelapsarian|prelapsarian]] nature of humanity was an innate tendency to good; the special relationship [[Adam and Eve]] enjoyed with God was due not to some supernatural gift, but to their own natures. Hence, in these traditions, the [[Fall (religion)|Fall]] was not the destruction of a supernatural gift, leaving humanity's nature to work unimpeded, but rather the corruption of that nature itself. Since the present nature of humans is corrupted from their original nature, it follows that it is not good, but rather evil (although some good may still remain). Thus, in these traditions, concupiscence is evil in itself. The [[Thirty-nine Articles]] of the Church of England state that "the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin".<ref>{{citation|chapter=Articles|title=Common Prayer|year=1562|author=Church of England|chapter-url=https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/articles-of-religion.aspx|access-date=2016-03-16|archive-date=2015-03-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150316110920/https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/articles-of-religion.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>

By contrast, Catholicism, while also maintaining that [[original righteousness|humanity's original nature is good]] (CCC 374), teaches that even after this gift [[original sin|was lost after the Fall]], human nature still cannot be called evil, because it remains a natural creation of God. Despite the fact that humans sin, [[Catholic theology]] teaches that human nature itself is not the ''cause'' of sin, although once it comes into contact with sin it may produce more sin.

The difference in views also extends to the relationship between concupiscence and original sin.

Another reason for the differing views of Catholics with Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans on concupiscence is their position on sin in general. The [[Magisterial Reformation|Magisterial Reformers]] taught that one can be guilty of sin even if it is not voluntary; the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church, by contrast, traditionally hold that one is guilty of sin only when the sin is voluntary. The [[Scholastics]] and magisterial reformers have different views on the issue of what is voluntary and what is not: the Catholic Scholastics considered the emotions of love, hate, like and dislike to be acts of [[free will|will]] or choice, while the early Protestant reformers did not.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022|reason=The phrase "early Protestant reformers" describes a large and theologically varied group of people who existed over a large period of time. Without a citation, its meaning is extremely unclear.}} By the Catholic position that one's attitudes are acts of will, sinful attitudes are voluntary. By the magisterial reformer view that these attitudes are involuntary, some sins are involuntary as well. 

Some denominations may relate concupiscence to "humanity's sinful nature" in order to distinguish it from particular sinful acts.