A Moral Philosophical Puzzle

[Christbearer98]

A philosophical moral puzzle:

As Catholics we’re always called to avoid the near occasion of sin, that’s not controversial.

But what if, by some weird circumstances, there was a probability that something good for you was a near occasion of sin that usually isn’t.

For example, take going to the gym. Usually, Bob keeps his eyes away from others because, although he is able to look at a woman just for neutral purposes, he finds that it often turns into lust. So he avoids sin. But say he started needing to take medication and the doctor says there’s a chance that it may make him prone to staring at women. That is, by taking this medication, he can still go to the gym, but he might end up staring at women; and if he does he knows his reaction would probably be to begin to sin rather than look away.

My question is: Is it good for Bob to stop going to the gym? AND would it be okay for him to even go to the gym once to see if he has this reaction from the medicine? So is he to sacrifice all his friends and health benefits that he’s obtained from the gym in order to avoid the possibility of the near occasion?

The gym detail is not important, it’s just an example to explain how something which is not inherently a near occasion to sin, and which is actually very good, can become a possible near occasion.

God bless you all!

 

[The_Catholic_Dude]

I don’t really have a cut and dry answer, but here are my thoughts. Generally a persons spiritual life is far more important than they’re physical life, Matthew 10:28 clearly describes this with the comparison of those that can harm the body vs the soul. So generally it is better to avoid the near occasion of sin if possible. However, in the example you gave, Bob doesn’t know if his reaction is even going to happen so its more difficult to say that that is for sure a near occasion of sin, now I don’t know if that would merit risking going to the gym or not, I think that would be a prudential choice that Bob has to decide for himself. Furthermore, the medication that he’s taking reduces his ability to avoid sin through no fault of his own, so his culpability for the sin would be reduced (though that can depend on a variety of other factors as well, how important is it for him to take the medication? Is it life threatening if he doesn’t? Are there other medications he can take?). Ultimately, I think its more a question of prudential judgment of the individual whether to continue the action or not.

 

[Vico]

…
But what if, by some weird circumstances, there was a probability that something good for you was a near occasion of sin that usually isn’t.
…

We are obliged to avoid a near (proximate) and voluntary occasion of sin, but for new situations it is not known to be near, yet one can make an estimate.

Catholic Encyclopedia

De Lugo defines proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.

Delany, J. (1911). Occasions of Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

 

[Mythicalbio]

Yes, it is good to avoid unless you can’t do otherwise due to duties, etc.