Over the weekend I re-read some of John Paul's talks relating to the current TOB debate. In talk 43 (pg 299) he makes a very helpful distinction between two meanings of concupiscence.
The first is concupiscence as an act.
The second is concupiscence of the flesh, a permanent disposition in human nature.
That gave me a lot of food for thought. It seems that sometimes in the debate the two meanings are used interchangeably, leading to confusion. At least that's my take after reading some of the blog posts and comments at various sites. Does it seem that way to you? How do you think this distinction might help us to move forward in the debate?
John Paul said:
"It is not possible to reach this second reading of the words of Mt 5:27-28 [about adultery committed in the heart] without taking into account what constitutes its specific theological character, namely, the organic relationship between concupiscence (as an act) and the concupiscence of the flesh as, so to speak, a permanent disposition that derives from human sinfulness."