[stfassisi]

“”I would like some clarity between how “prone to sin” (resulting from the fall) is different than “weakkness of human nature...”””

Here is more from Saint Aquinas on this...

“The devil is the occasional and indirect cause of all our sins, in so far as he induced the first man to sin, by reason of whose sin human nature is so infected, that we are all prone to sin: even as the burning of wood might be imputed to the man who dried the wood so as to make it easily inflammable. He is not, however, the direct cause of all the sins of men, as though each were the result of his suggestion. Origen proves this (Peri Archon iii, 2) from the fact that even if the devil were no more, men would still have the desire for food, sexual pleasures and the like; which desire might be inordinate, unless it were subordinate to reason, a matter that is subject to the free-will” (STh I-II, Q. 80 Art. 4).

Human Nature can be weak due to food ,sex etc...

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting.

[z3n]

Thank you stfassisi. Really.
But I still feel very fuzzy on the difference.
In fact, I feel like it just got fuzzier.

The statement that the devil is the indirect cause of all our sins seems quite clear by itself. ALL our sins? Not much wavering there.
All of human nature is infected with the first sin. Okay.
That is the part where we are prone to sin resulting from the fall.

But the article's statement seem as if there was a dual probability of sin, and the other aspect was just the (inherant?) "weakness of human nature"... and when you went into the desire for food and sexual pleasures, to me these would seem to be the later, as they are some what mundane and perhaps not so diabolical.