Beards and Gay Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

I just reread your question and it seems you are not asking about having sex with a child but what do I think of the urge to have sex with a child.

That is not an easy question to answer…

Is a kleptomania sinful if he doesn’t steal anything. Is an alcoholic sinful if he doesn’t drink. Is someone who is gay sinful if they remain celibate? Then the tricky one…is a paedophile sinful if he doesn’t act on his urges?

The Christian answer is no. There is such a thing as a chaste pedophile: a person who is tempted to have sex with children, but chooses not to. There’s no reason, in Catholic theology, that such a person couldn’t be a saint.

Perhaps if you think about your own attitude toward people who have an unwanted attraction to children, you will better understand the Christian attitude toward gay people. We feel that the desire to have sex with another person of the same sex is part of the human condition for some people, but that it shouldn’t be acted upon. Hence, the movement of the soul (inclination) toward the activity is “disordered”.

Is it evil to think it even if you don’t act on it? Is there such a thing as a thought crime?

It’s worth keeping in mind that thoughts can be voluntary or involuntary. To actively choose to fantasize, for example, could be a “thought crime”, since it makes the activity more likely. But to put the thought out of your head once it comes in is no thought crime at all – in fact, it is an example of courage and self-control.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you need to be more careful about what you type, Bradski, because the sequence of posts went like this…

Except that Catholics consider some urges to be disordered. And I don’t.

What do you say about the urge to have sex with a child?

I consider it wrong. Would that come as a surprise to you? I’m not sure why you’d ask it.

I just reread your question and it seems you are not asking about having sex with a child but what do I think of the urge to have sex with a child.

That is not an easy question to answer…

Is a kleptomania sinful if he doesn’t steal anything. Is an alcoholic sinful if he doesn’t drink. Is someone who is gay sinful if they remain celibate? Then the tricky one…is a paedophile sinful if he doesn’t act on his urges?

I had a long discussion with someone on another forum about a similar problem. Is it possible for evil to exist if no-one does anything evil? Is it evil to think it even if you don’t act on it? Is there such a thing as a thought crime?

Yet, the post that triggered the sequence was this one:

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Whether it’s natural or disordered, we both agree that urges ought not be indulged in simply because they’re urges, yes?

**No, we don’t both agree. **

If I have an urge to have a beer while I’m watching the football, then I shall. If a couple find each other sexually attracted to each other and they feel an urge to make love, then all normal considerations apart (they don’t do it in the middle of the road, they have no personal commitments to anyone else, they are old enough etc), then there is nothing wrong with it.

What you have come around to is agreeing with PR that not all urges ought to be indulged merely because they are urges, despite the fact that you stated categorically that you don’t agree with the statement that “urges ought not to be indulged merely because they are urges.” If you don’t agree with the statement, then your position, logically, must be that you hold to the position that ALL urges ought to be indulged MERELY because they are urges.

Keep your eyes on the bouncy little logical ball.

If you disagree with the statement that it IS NOT the case that all urges ought to be indulged, then you are agreeing to the negative of the statement which is that it IS the case that all urges ought to be indulged.

Yet you claimed that the urge to have sex with a child is wrong, implying that not all urges ought to be indulged even though you disagreed with PR when she asked if you agree that not all urges ought to be indulged.

Do you see the confusion you have created by following your urge to indulge urges?

 

[PRmerger]

What you have come around to is agreeing with PR that not all urges ought to be indulged merely because they are urges, despite the fact that you stated categorically that you don’t agree with the statement that “urges ought not to be indulged merely because they are urges.” If you don’t agree with the statement, then your position, logically, must be that you hold to the position that ALL urges ought to be indulged MERELY because they are urges.

Keep your eyes on the bouncy little logical ball.

If you disagree with the statement that it IS NOT the case that all urges ought to be indulged, then you are agreeing to the negative of the statement which is that it IS the case that all urges ought to be indulged.

Yet you claimed that the urge to have sex with a child is wrong, implying that not all urges ought to be indulged even though you disagreed with PR when she asked if you agree that not all urges ought to be indulged.

Do you see the confusion you have created by following your urge to indulge urges?

 

[PRmerger]

Personally (because these are decisions we have to make personally), I would consider it wrong as regards my wife and myself. Other people might not and you’d have to check with them if they thought it was OK.

So you are saying that if a man cheats on his wife with his coworker, and his wife never finds out, it may not necessarily be immoral?

And why would it be wrong for you to cheat with your coworker, if your wife is never harmed (i.e. doesn’t ever find out)?

 

[PRmerger]

I just reread your question and it seems you are not asking about having sex with a child but what do I think of the urge to have sex with a child.

That is not an easy question to answer…

Is a kleptomania sinful if he doesn’t steal anything. Is an alcoholic sinful if he doesn’t drink. Is someone who is gay sinful if they remain celibate? Then the tricky one…is a paedophile sinful if he doesn’t act on his urges?

I had a long discussion with someone on another forum about a similar problem. Is it possible for evil to exist if no-one does anything evil? Is it evil to think it even if you don’t act on it? Is there such a thing as a thought crime?

I think lots of urges, feelings, thoughts can be wrong.

So even if one never indulges in, say, the urge to murder his wife whenever she chastises him for leaving his dirty socks on the floor, that urge/feeling/thought is sinful.

And, I would add, resisting this sinful urge is…VIRTUOUS.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think lots of urges, feelings, thoughts can be wrong.

So even if one never indulges in, say, the urge to murder his wife whenever she chastises him for leaving his dirty socks on the floor, that urge/feeling/thought is sinful.

Nope.

And, I would add, resisting this sinful urge is…VIRTUOUS.

Yep.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope.

Oh, yes. Absolutely.

Just look at the list of deadly sins.
How many of them are feelings/urges/thoughts?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, yes. Absolutely.

Just look at the list of deadly sins.
How many of them are feelings/urges/thoughts?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

From our Catechism:

The tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart.–CCC2538

Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin:

St. Augustine saw envy as “the diabolical sin.” “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.”–2539

The ninth commandment warns against lust or carnal concupiscence.–2529

So even having the INTENTION, without the action, is a violation of the 10th commandment.

The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, yes. Absolutely.

Just look at the list of deadly sins.
How many of them are feelings/urges/thoughts?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

None of them. All of them are dispositions, which is to say “vices”.

Vices manifest themselves in temptation, but the temptation is not sin. It is not envy to experience desire for what another has; it is envy to fantasize or to encourage that desire.

 

[PRmerger]

None of them. All of them are dispositions, which is to say “vices”.

Sure. Vices are sins.

7 deadly sins. Or 7 deadly vices.

Whatever you want to call them.

Still the inclination is sinful.

 

[PRmerger]

None of them. All of them are dispositions, which is to say “vices”.

Incidentally, I find it odd that you seem to be demoting “vices”, as if sin is bad and vices are only kind of bad.

The Catechism proclaims exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

Sin is bad. Vices are even worse.

The repetition of sins - even venial ones - engenders vices, among which are the capital sins.–1876

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PR,

You misread me entirely. I think vices are the really evil things, and sins less severe. I think sins flow out of vices. And I think that vices are acquired.

However, I think that a person who has a given vice is often granted grace to counteract that vice. This grace comes at the moment of temptation.

A story…

Billy is 5. He has no vices. But he accidentally tells a lie once, and good things happen. He learns to tell lies regularly. Now he has a vice. Often, he sees a hard situation, and immediately desires to tell a lie and get out of it.

Is there something wrong with this desire? Yes, in the sense that it is the manifestation of a vice. But no, in the sense that there is no sin in the desire. By desiring to lie, Billy does not sin. This is Church teaching (and Aristotle’s teaching, and Aquinas’s teaching, and so on), and non-negotiable.

Is Billy responsible for his vices? Yes – because of his previous sins. His current temptation does not play a role in making him responsible for his vices. When Billy is tempted, he should stand fast in the confidence that he can still be righteous, that temptation is not sin – or, in Biblical terms, that testing is not failure.

Does this make sense? If not, I’d be happy to go through some material from various virtue ethicists and natural law theorists in order to make it more clear.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So even having the INTENTION, without the action, is a violation of the 10th commandment.

Of course. I never denied that. But there is a HUGE difference between an inclination and having an intention. Have you never desired to do something sinful without intending to do something sinful?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. I never denied that. But there is a HUGE difference between an inclination and having an intention. Have you never desired to do something sinful without intending to do something sinful?

I have no need to discuss my personal inclinations and intentions. However, the desire–to hit one’s son, to steal office supplies, to have sex with a minor–is indeed sinful.

Otherwise, the 7 deadly sins–most of which involve not a single ACTION at all, but rather only an activity of the mind or heart–would not be sins.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course. I never denied that. But there is a HUGE difference between an inclination and having an intention. Have you never desired to do something sinful without intending to do something sinful?

This last question seems to be a distinction without a difference.

I appreciate your intention to understand with clarity what the difference might be, but it seems to me that certain inclinations are indicators of something ontologically amiss with the person. It isn’t so much that the inclinations are sinful, but that having those inclinations is revelatory of a deeper brokenness, so that even if any inclination, in itself, is not sinful, it belies a state of being that desperately requires “fixing” as shown by the fact that it has inclinations that a whole and intact spiritual/moral being would not exhibit.

It isn’t so much that sinful behaviours are present because sinful behaviours are merely the “wake” of a sinful being, just as a ship leaves a certain trailing of waters as its wake. Changing behaviours does not fix the sinful being. Neither is it even important, from God’s point of view, that the being has certain directional inclinations, again as a ship may tend to list or drift towards port or starboard. Fixing inclinations does not make the being whole and healthy. Rather, it is the state of the moral being that concerns God BECAUSE it is the spiritual or moral state of the being that brings about sinful proclivities and behaviours. Fixing the being itself automatically removes the unwanted inclinations and behaviours.

God is more concerned with fixing the being (redemption and sanctification) than he is with fixing the symptoms (proclivities and behaviours,) just as it is true that a physician ought to be concerned with the health of the patient rather than masking or correcting symptoms. Equally, it would be true that a shipwright/designer ought to be more concerned with the overall seaworthiness of the ship rather than merely its tendencies to drift or the kind of wake it leaves behind. If the ship is soundly designed and built, problems with drift or wake simply will not exist.

 

[simpleas]

This last question seems to be a distinction without a difference.

I appreciate your intention to understand with clarity what the difference might be, but it seems to me that certain inclinations are indicators of something ontologically amiss with the person. It isn’t so much that the inclinations are sinful, but that having those inclinations is revelatory of a deeper brokenness, so that even if any inclination, in itself, is not sinful, it belies a state of being that desperately requires “fixing” as shown by the fact that it has inclinations that a whole and intact spiritual/moral being would not exhibit.

It isn’t so much that sinful behaviours are present because sinful behaviours are merely the “wake” of a sinful being, just as a ship leaves a certain trailing of waters as its wake. Changing behaviours does not fix the sinful being. Neither is it even important, from God’s point of view, that the being has certain directional inclinations, again as a ship may tend to list or drift towards port or starboard. Fixing inclinations does not make the being whole and healthy. Rather, it is the state of the moral being that concerns God BECAUSE it is the spiritual or moral state of the being that brings about sinful proclivities and behaviours. Fixing the being itself automatically removes the unwanted inclinations and behaviours.

God is more concerned with fixing the being (redemption and sanctification) than he is with fixing the symptoms (proclivities and behaviours,) just as it is true that a physician ought to be concerned with the health of the patient rather than masking or correcting symptoms. Equally, it would be true that a shipwright/designer ought to be more concerned with the overall seaworthiness of the ship rather than merely its tendencies to drift or the kind of wake it leaves behind. If the ship is soundly designed and built, problems with drift or wake simply will not exist.

Can I ask, who are the *whole and intact spiritual/moral being *? I think you are speaking of beings who have been transformed spiritually from their sin, because we are all born with inclinations to one thing or another, none of us are born perfect?

Thanks.

 

[Bradski]

Now I misspoke. I meant to say that “you said that there are no disordered urges”.

I’ve gone back through the posts and I can’t see anywhere where I’ve said that. I think you’ve misinterpreted something I might have said. To clarify (and this is in part answer to Peter’s post:

Everyone has urges, be they sexual or otherwise.

I don’t believe that there’s a problem in acting on those urges if harm is not going to occur.

Catholics believe that some particular urges are disordered, such as the urge to masturbate or the urge for gay sex. I disagree with that specific view.

Some urges could be considered ‘disordered’ if, by acting on them, some harm would occur. For example, the urge to have sex with a child.

Whether those type of urges can be classed as morally wrong in themselves, or sinful if you like, is a debatable point. I’m tending towards Prodigal’s view that the unconscious urge is not - otherwise we have ‘thought crimes’. But intentionally fantasising about the urges could be described as morally wrong. You can’t prevent the former but you can the latter.

So you are saying that if a man cheats on his wife with his coworker, and his wife never finds out, it may not necessarily be immoral?

There is the potential for harm. I think we’ve been here before. It’s like shooting at someone. It doesn’t become acceptable if you miss. But if you are not going to suffer from it in any way and your wife really wouldn’t mind if she found out, then it would be OK.

And why would it be wrong for you to cheat with your coworker, if your wife is never harmed (i.e. doesn’t ever find out)?

I answered this in post 906.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have no need to discuss my personal inclinations and intentions. However, the desire–to hit one’s son, to steal office supplies, to have sex with a minor–is indeed sinful.

Otherwise, the 7 deadly sins–most of which involve not a single ACTION at all, but rather only an activity of the mind or heart–would not be sins.

You are incorrect. The seven deadly sins are not technically sins, but vices – the root of sins. Thus, Chaucer said “the visible acts of sin are indications of what is within a man’s heart, just as the sign outside the tavern is a sign of the wine that is within the cellar.”

rc.net/wcc/virtues/seven.htm
princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Seven_deadly_sins.html

And see whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/, where you’ll find:

“The Seven Deadly Sins are really attitudes that underlie sins, whether mortal or venial, first identified by St. John Cassian (360 - 435) and refined by Pope St. Gregory the Great (540 - 604).”

The desire to steal office supplies is just that: a desire. You might have the desire because you’re a bad person, but the desire is not what makes you bad. The desire comes from your sin, OR from the devil, OR from the flesh – but you are not sinning by having the desire. This is Catholic teaching.

Please read the Catholic Encyclopedia on “temptation”, where it says:

Temptation is not in itself sin. No matter how vivid the unholy image may be, no matter how strong the inclination to transgress the law, no matter how vehement the sensation of unlawful satisfaction, as long as there is no consent of the will, there is no sin. The very essence of sin in any grade is that it should be a deliberate act of the human will. Attack is not synonymous with surrender.

newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm

I hope this helps. What you’re presenting as Catholic teaching isn’t Catholic teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This last question seems to be a distinction without a difference.

I appreciate your intention to understand with clarity what the difference might be, but it seems to me that certain inclinations are indicators of something ontologically amiss with the person. It isn’t so much that the inclinations are sinful, but that having those inclinations is revelatory of a deeper brokenness, so that even if any inclination, in itself, is not sinful, it belies a state of being that desperately requires “fixing” as shown by the fact that it has inclinations that a whole and intact spiritual/moral being would not exhibit.

But Jesus was tempted. Obviously he was inclined toward the objects offered (which were objectively good), or else there would have been no temptation. So surely we should say that (a) sometimes inclination results from brokenness, and (b) sometimes it does not. I’m not sure why it would ever matter to distinguish which. Maybe because we want someone to recognize a temptation as an indication of a deeper problem? (“Jimmy, maybe you wouldn’t constantly want to set houses on fire if you stopped watching pyro movies!”)

It isn’t so much that sinful behaviours are present because sinful behaviours are merely the “wake” of a sinful being, just as a ship leaves a certain trailing of waters as its wake. Changing behaviours does not fix the sinful being. Neither is it even important, from God’s point of view, that the being has certain directional inclinations, again as a ship may tend to list or drift towards port or starboard. Fixing inclinations does not make the being whole and healthy. Rather, it is the state of the moral being that concerns God BECAUSE it is the spiritual or moral state of the being that brings about sinful proclivities and behaviours. Fixing the being itself automatically removes the unwanted inclinations and behaviours.

This is ultimately true. But I’m not sure it’s true in this world. In this world, the devil can tempt – thus, we can have inclinations that we are not at all responsible for. The Lives of the Saints is full of stories of temptation such as this, which does not proceed from vice. Also, consider Paul’s thorn in the flesh.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But Jesus was tempted.

I would argue that Jesus was not tempted in the same sense that fallen humans are tempted. The temptations of Jesus were more descriptive of what Satan did (attempting to tempt Jesus) rather than the inclination that Jesus had to do Satan’s bidding.

What James has to say is revelatory on this question…

Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. (James 1:12-15)

If Jesus is God and God cannot be tempted to do evil, then Jesus could not have been tempted in the same sense that fallen humans are.

Obviously he was inclined toward the objects offered (which were objectively good), or else there would have been no temptation. So surely we should say that (a) sometimes inclination results from brokenness, and (b) sometimes it does not. I’m not sure why it would ever matter to distinguish which. Maybe because we want someone to recognize a temptation as an indication of a deeper problem? (“Jimmy, maybe you wouldn’t constantly want to set houses on fire if you stopped watching pyro movies!”)

I suspect that the above answers the quandary about Jesus being tempted.

Your (a) and (b) distinction of temptation hits the mark. If two options are both objectively good and the matter is one of discernment of the good, it would be possible to be tempted by a lesser good rather than an objective evil, so the temptation would not arise from brokenness.

Perhaps, in this sense Satan was presenting a lesser good in each temptation and challenging Jesus to make a judgement regarding priority rather than good vs evil. This would be a matter of discernment and reasoning concerning which good ends take priority.

On the other hand, temptations of the (a) brokenness variety may be the result of choosing intrinsic evils so the choice is not between two goods, but discernibly a choice between an objective good and an intrinsic evil. This would arise from brokenness in the sense of the incapacity to distinguish good from evil - calling evil good and good evil. It is this kind of temptation which Jesus as God would not have been susceptible to, but the human nature of Jesus would have had to prioritize as a test to his human nature.

It is the “broken” variety of of temptation that Paul seems to be referring to since he identifies its source as “sin living in me,” which clearly refers to the temptation to choose evil rather than good.