Interesting. Because Bishop Pfeiffer says the opposite. That such sins are the cause of anger (road rage).
That's why I brought it up. +?Pfeiffer was just plain wrong. Catholic moral theology has always held them to be two distinct impulses, and so have world cultures. In ancient cultures, men prone to impurity were considered to be weakened for battle, made softer, and less aggressive ... and so some cultures ordered their soldiers to remain "clean" from impurity before battle. Both concupiscence (impulse to impurity) and irascibility (impulse toward anger) are effects of Original Sin but are always listed as two distinct effects. Finally, anger/wrath and lust are listed as two separate cardinal sins, and by cardinal is meant that they do not reduce to other sins. So anger/wrath does not reduce to lust. In fact, I believe that the reason our country is so docile and puts up with so much criminal activity from the government is precisely due to being given over so thoroughly to impurity. Impurity makes men soft, and less virile. It's almost as if those who conquer the impulse to impurity find themselves with irascibility (tendency toward anger) manifesting itself even more strongly as an "outlet" for Original Sin.
Of course, sometimes irritability can come from other causes, but even then when I see it it's mostly when people are ill or in pain or in discomfort. That too I attribute to the fact that when you are ill or in pain, carnal gratification is typically the last thing one is inclined toward ... so the irascibility manifests itself.
That is not to say that someone who's given over to impurity can't also have a tendency to anger/rage, but it's never the kind that comes from principle, indignation (for example) against injustice or lies or criminality.