Summary of text [comment] page 42
Schoonenberg argued that natural evil lies in both a privation of a good [evilphysical2(1)] and the limitation of the subject [evilmetaphysical3(2())].
A new dimension arises when natural evil effects humans [that is; when humans occupy the terminus of “metaphysical evil” as subject(3)].
The question arises: Does this connect natural and moral evil?
[A subsidiary question for the translator: Is ‘connect’ the correct word?]
Perhaps not and sort of.
Perhaps not. Scientific inquiry will reveal the nature of the natural subject [that is, subject1, the terminus in Firstness. Therefore, the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness are only connected in actuality.] This pertains to natural evil.
Sort of. Scientific inquiry cannot reveal the moral intentions [that would correspond to a moral agent as subject1. A connection between the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness is always a possibility for moral agents. Why? The moral status of subject1 and the naturally limited status of subject(3) are simultaneously determined. This pertains to moral evil.
In sum,] our own feelings that “natural evil” has a “moral component” bears witness to some relation, which the translator of Schoonenberg labeled “connection”.
This connection concerns, what Schoonenberg called “a new dimension” that arises in regards to moral evil. [That “new dimension” “connects” the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness.]