Beards and Gay Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

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…

I think you’re right in what you said the second time: that Jesus was tempted by lesser goods. However, I don’t think he dealt with this – as you describe it – as an intellectual test, a test of judgment. Rather, he clearly underwent a “passion” in the temptation, an experience, a test, and this was hard for him.

Also, this is not the only time Jesus experienced temptation. Remember: he was tested in every way we are tested, but without sin. The straightforward way to read that passage is to say that he was tempted by everything he perceived to be good, just as we are tempted by everything we perceive to be good.

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.

And yet he was tempted in all the ways we are tempted. Something’s gotta give. I don’t say I understand it, but the Scripture doesn’t lie.

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.

As before, I would explain this by harnessing temptation to our perceived good. I think it’s impossible to be tempted by something one does not perceive to be good (even if it is genuinely evil).

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.

I don’t see why “sin living in me” couldn’t be the firm disposition to choose lesser goods.

 

[PRmerger]

You are incorrect. The seven deadly sins are not technically sins, but vices – the root of sins.

Vices are sins, according to our Catechism. They are so much sins that they are REPETITIVE sins.

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

newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm

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

That’s funny, because I didn’t see the Catechism in any of your quotes.

Chaucer, I saw. Chaucer.

And an alleged quote from a saint and a pope, but no reference to any magisterial teaching on vices not being sins.

I dunno. It looks to me like in all my previous posts I was overflowing with the Catechism.

So if one had to guess who is presenting Catholic teaching: a poster with numerous references to the Catechism, or a poster who quotes Chaucer, well…

 

[PRmerger]

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.

You are correct here.

But let’s just start from the beginning and be clear: if one’s thoughts cannot be sinful, then how can envy be a sin?

And if one’s desires can’t be sinful, then how can lust be a sin?

And if one’s intentions can’t be sinful, then how can greed be a sin?

None of those have any action attached to them, whatsoever. They are all concerned with intentions of the heart.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

You are incorrect. The seven deadly sins are not technically sins, but vices – the root of sins.

I will have to quote the Catechism again, PS.

One of the 7 deadly sins is ENVY.

We are agreed on that. If not, I can give you a source that lists the 7 deadly sins.

Here is where the Catechism says it is a sin.

2539 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.”

 

[PRmerger]

You keep circling around the block with your oblique references to us “all failing”. You keep mentioning it, and I don’t think you’ve yet completed the circle in your mind as to what your argument is.

Your position is: we fail, according to the Catholic paradigm, therefore that means…"

…what? (As far as the moral law is concerned.)

That the moral law is wrong because we keep failing?

Bradski, could you please answer the above? Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

I answered this in post 906.

But you haven’t answered how it harms your wife if you cheat on her and she never finds out.

Believing in a lie doesn’t necessarily harm someone.

If it did, then the argument for gay marriage falls apart, because that’s our entire argument: it’s a lie to believe that 2 men having sex together can be an expression of love.

Just like it’s a lie for 2 people who are not married to be having sex–they say “I love you with their bodies” but don’t really love each other.

So, either believing in a lie does harm someone, which means that homosexual marriage is harmful.

Or believing in a lie doesn’t harm someone, which means that there is nothing wrong with your cheating on your wife if she never finds out.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, could you please answer the above? Thanks.

It’s a reference to the fact that we’re all in this together. We all sin (a term you’d employ) and we are all a long way short of being where we’d need to be. Yet there seems an exceptional amount of discussion on the problems associated with being gay when it is no problem for the majority of people and a very small problem in the grand scheme of things.

But you haven’t answered how it harms your wife if you cheat on her and she never finds out.

If she never found out (although it’s possible she could) then it would do her no harm at all. But the harm done would be to our relationship, whether she realised it or not. I value not just my wife, but the relationship we have. If I cheated, then I would break that relationship.

if one’s thoughts cannot be sinful, then how can envy be a sin?

Envy has negative connotations - possibly because it is classed as a sin. But it is entirely natural human emotion. I think you are classing benign envy with destructive envy. The former is entirely natural and would probably incline you to better yourself to achieve that which you are envious of. Your friend has a nice house so maybe if you worked harder you’d be able to buy one as well. You might even use the feeling as a positive in telling your friend that you are envious of her place - almost as a compliment.

Destructive envy would be a feeling that you want that which what the other person has or would prefer if she didn’t have it. You want her house specifically or you’d prefer it if she didn’t have it all.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Vices are sins, according to our Catechism. They are so much sins that they are REPETITIVE sins.

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

That’s funny, because I didn’t see the Catechism in any of your quotes.

Chaucer, I saw. Chaucer.

And an alleged quote from a saint and a pope, but no reference to any magisterial teaching on vices not being sins.

I dunno. It looks to me like in all my previous posts I was overflowing with the Catechism.

So if one had to guess who is presenting Catholic teaching: a poster with numerous references to the Catechism, or a poster who quotes Chaucer, well…

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

Why exactly do you feel the need for grandstanding and mocking?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Destructive envy would be a feeling that you want that which what the other person has or would prefer if she didn’t have it. You want her house specifically or you’d prefer it if she didn’t have it all.

Sounds like the outlook of gay marriage advocates towards heterosexual marriage. They want what the other (heterosexual) persons have (conjugal union) and prefer it that heterosexuals didn’t have it at all, which is why the SSM lobby want to redefine marriage and will destroy anyone who supports the conjugal view (Colorado baker, Brendan Eich, etc.) You have correctly identified the entire movement for what it is - a case of destructive envy under the guise of protecting civil rights.

Our culture has become so good at disguising destructive envy that we now enshrine it In law.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But let’s just start from the beginning and be clear: if one’s thoughts cannot be sinful, then how can envy be a sin?

I never said thoughts couldn’t be sinful. Of course thoughts can be sinful! After all, thoughts can be voluntary – hence the term “fantasize”.

And if one’s desires can’t be sinful, then how can lust be a sin?

This is a language issue, actually. When people speaking English use the word “desire”, they usually mean what people speaking Latin would call a “passion” – the root “pass-” meaning something undergone, not something willed. **You cannot be morally responsible for something you undergo, but do not will. ** See my quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia above.

But yes, some translations of Latin say that lust is a kind of desire. In such a context, “desires” may be sinful. But these desires are always WILLED.

And if one’s intentions can’t be sinful, then how can greed be a sin?

I **certainly **never said intentions can’t be sinful. I actually think that (in some sense) *only *intentions are sinful; that’s the point of Matthew 5-6.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to misunderstand me, or what’s going on, but you just won’t find statements above where I denied that thoughts or intentions could be sinful.

Let’s see if I can make this more clear, though. A “bad habit” or a “vice” is the source of all kinds of sin, and a bad habit is acquired by individual cases of sinning. But, since a “vice” is not an action, it is not a sin. Thus, the “Seven Deadly Sins” are properly called the “Seven Deadly Vices”. The CCC uses a technical term, “the Capital Sins”, but the CCC does not say that these “sins” are actions; no, it says that they are sources of actions.

Aquinas:

A habit stands midway between power and act. Now it is evident that both in good and in evil, act precedes power, as stated in Metaph. ix, 19. For it is better to do well than to be able to do well, and in like manner, it is more blameworthy to do evil, than to be able to do evil: whence it also follows that both in goodness and in badness, habit stands midway between power and act, so that, to wit, even as a good or evil habit stands above the corresponding power in goodness or in badness, so does it stand below the corresponding act. This is also made clear from the fact that a habit is not called good or bad, save in so far as it induces to a good or bad act: wherefore a habit is called good or bad by reason of the goodness or badness of its act: so that an act surpasses its habit in goodness or badness, since "the cause of a thing being such, is yet more so."

And Augustine:

Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.]: So “true is it that every sin is voluntary, that, unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all.”

Now let me ask you a question: Is temptation voluntary? If not, how can it ever be a sin?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PR,

I highly encourage you to read the Summa’s section on habits, sin and vice. It’s very good, and I think it would help us get on the same page about all this.

home.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm

 

[PRmerger]

I never said thoughts couldn’t be sinful. Of course thoughts can be sinful! After all, thoughts can be voluntary – hence the term “fantasize”.

Well, then, we are agreed, and all of the previous dialogue was unnecessary.

One’s thoughts can be sinful.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a reference to the fact that we’re all in this together. We all sin (a term you’d employ) and we are all a long way short of being where we’d need to be. Yet there seems an exceptional amount of discussion on the problems associated with being gay when it is no problem for the majority of people and a very small problem in the grand scheme of things.

The bolded section appears to be a nonsequitur to the fact that “we all sin”.

As far as an “exceptional amount of discussion”–well, I think if you would look at the amount of time the Church spends on it, it’s proportionately rather small.

To wit:
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=homosexual&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

vs

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=jesus&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

And, as I said, if you look at my posts as a microcosm of the conversations Catholics are having, attention to homosexuality is rather miniscule.

Finally, if you look at the history of our Church, not much attention was given to homosexuality. (Hah! And of course, we receive criticism for that, too. “Why does the Church pay so much attention to homosexuality?” “Why doesn’t the Church pay enough attention to homosexuality!”). When did discussions become more conspicuous? When a shrill, combative group of folks decided to make homosexuality and gay “rights” their raison d’etre.

So all the conversation has been because of criticism of the Church’s 2000 year teaching on sexuality.

She is simply providing “a reason for the hope that is in her”–1 Peter 3:15

 

[PRmerger]

If she never found out (although it’s possible she could) then it would do her no harm at all. But the harm done would be to our relationship, whether she realised it or not. I value not just my wife, but the relationship we have. If I cheated, then I would break that relationship.

I am glad that we are on the same page that “harm” does not necessarily mean “harm to a person”, but “harm to a relationship”. This naturally means that “harm” could be done to a principle, or an ideal or a concept.

That makes arguments for the Catholic moral ethics so much easier to make.

All Catholic ethos proposes that harm is done, when the moral law is contravened, to a person, or to a relationship, principle, ideal or concept.

And that’s the answer to “who does it hurt if a gay man marries another gay man?”

 

[PRmerger]

Why exactly do you feel the need for grandstanding and mocking?

Grandstanding and mocking because of a GIF?

What is that GIF except an animated version of this:

I presume that you do not feel yourself to be grandstanding and mocking when you used that here?

Of course, the syllables “cir-cle” could be used to refer to anything at all. But if we take “circle” as a rigid designator, then what we mean by that designator could never change.

If I start a dialect where “circle” means “ketchup”, I haven’t done anything wrong or incorrect, though.

 

[PRmerger]

Envy has negative connotations - possibly because it is classed as a sin.

Yes. Indeed it is classed as a sin.

But it is entirely natural human emotion. I think you are classing benign envy with destructive envy. The former is entirely natural and would probably incline you to better yourself to achieve that which you are envious of. Your friend has a nice house so maybe if you worked harder you’d be able to buy one as well. You might even use the feeling as a positive in telling your friend that you are envious of her place - almost as a compliment.

I don’t have a problem with any of that as presented.

Destructive envy would be a feeling that you want that which what the other person has or would prefer if she didn’t have it. You want her house specifically or you’d prefer it if she didn’t have it all.

Egg-zactly. Feeling.

Feelings can be sinful.

Thoughts can be sinful.

Urges can be sinful.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, then, we are agreed, and all of the previous dialogue was unnecessary.

One’s thoughts can be sinful.

Looking back over the conversation, I see that you said:

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

To which I responded “No.” I should have been more clear. Urges can’t be wrong, and feelings/thoughts can only be wrong if they are voluntary. And the specific example you gave (about murderous temptation) isn’t sinful, since it isn’t voluntary.

But I see how you could have thought that I was saying thoughts couldn’t be sinful. Of course, I agree they can, if they are voluntary.

Temptations can’t be sinful. The Greek word for temptation denotes passivity, not activity.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Grandstanding and mocking because of a GIF?

Your post appeared to be a performance for the audience, not a respectful response to my comments. I am sure this is not the first time you have heard such a complaint.

(I say this as someone who likes to grandstand myself, and as someone who has enjoyed your grandstanding in other contexts. Despite its being enjoyable to spectators, I don’t think it encourages helpful communication.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Looking back over the conversation, I see that you said:

To which I responded “No.” I should have been more clear. Urges can’t be wrong, and feelings/thoughts can only be wrong if they are voluntary. And the specific example you gave (about murderous temptation) isn’t sinful, since it isn’t voluntary.

But I see how you could have thought that I was saying thoughts couldn’t be sinful. Of course, I agree they can, if they are voluntary.

Temptations can’t be sinful. The Greek word for temptation denotes passivity, not activity.

The problem with the idea that thoughts or urges can only be wrong if they are voluntary is that what is being conveniently forgotten is that formerly voluntary behaviours, urges and thoughts may become involuntary over time as habits get ingrained into the makeup of the person such that, as Jesus said, individuals become “slaves to sin.”

A person who gets drunk and then acts “involuntarily” to commit a homocide using the steering wheel of a car may not have voluntarily killed the innocent person, but a series of voluntary choices led to an incapacitation of volition for which the guilty party is still, well, guilty. Thus involuntary manslaughter is still sinful and culpable even though it is involuntary at the time it is committed.

Likewise, inclinations that are in and of themselves involuntary may have taken on a power of their own because of former voluntary choices or indiscriminate past volition. The “fine pickle” that the person finds themselves in may have, in fact, been the result of their own choices, which makes the person culpable for putting themselves into the compromised position.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The problem with the idea that thoughts or urges can only be wrong if they are voluntary is that what is being conveniently forgotten is that formerly voluntary behaviours, urges and thoughts may become involuntary over time as habits get ingrained into the makeup of the person such that, as Jesus said, individuals become “slaves to sin.”

A person who gets drunk and then acts “involuntarily” to commit a homocide using the steering wheel of a car may not have voluntarily killed the innocent person, but a series of voluntary choices led to an incapacitation of volition for which the guilty party is still, well, guilty. Thus involuntary manslaughter is still sinful and culpable even though it is involuntary at the time it is committed.

Likewise, inclinations that are in and of themselves involuntary may have taken on a power of their own because of former voluntary choices or indiscriminate past volition. The “fine pickle” that the person finds themselves in may have, in fact, been the result of their own choices, which makes the person culpable for putting themselves into the compromised position.

No one is denying any of this, Peter. But an act of grave matter committed involuntarily is not a sin. Nevertheless, the person is responsible for the consequences of the act, provided that the person has played a role in forming the bad disposition that led to the involuntary act.

If you want to say that there is such a thing as an “involuntary sin”, however, you are going against the tradition of the Church.

A drunk driver nearly killed my father. She was so fully given over to drunkenness at that point that I have no doubt she never “decided” to drive home drunk. It was all habit. But she was responsible for the action, because of the many times she had consciously committed such sins before – these previous times developed the vice. So she was responsible for the vice, even if she did not have the mental wherewithal to be sinning on this given occasion.