Do our born predispositions to sins excuse us, or make us hell-bound?

[RealisticCatholic]

Especially biological/genetic ~ Do these kinds of dispositions to certain sinful behaviors (e.g., prone to sloth or anger or lust) reduce personal responsibility?

Note I did not say ELIMINATE, rather, reduce.

If so, then do these personal predispositions to sin to an extent lessen moral culpability as well?

OR, rather, is it precisely our unchosen, born predispositions to sinful behavior that make us desire hell over God? That is, if I have a born psychological disposition to anger and lack of empathy, then am I never going to desire compassion and love, and so I will want hell — only be happy in hell. Is that right? In other words, is this what makes hell “getting what you want”?

I see two options: We either go to hell because we deliberately choose to, so that born predispostions to sinful behavior excuse our behavior — to an extent, of course — and so hell must be a conscious decision against God. OR it seems that our predispositions do not excuse us, but it doesn’t matter anyway, since hell is just getting what we want: An angry person would rather have hell, etc. And so even if some people are born for hell, it is just what they would want, anyway.

I know it seems fishy but I’m trying to balance different Catholic points and I’m not sure how. On the one hand, hell is not an arbitary punishment but relates somehow to what a human WANTS/chooses. “The gates of hell are locked from within,” as C.S. Lewis said. But then the other Catholic point seems to be that mortal sin requires free consent, which biological predispositions seem to affect. How to balance?

To put a more specific dilemma on the matter: It seems no one would freely choose hell, unless they were somehow “wired” to want it, in the first place. For who would choose against God, if God is precisely what is supposed to make humans happy?

Sorry long post. I had to get all the thoughts out

 

[Irishmom2]

I am not sure what you mean by biological predispositions reducing personal responsibility. People know they have certain predispositions. They need to work on them and figure out how to overcome them like any other thing that causes problems. They are still responsible for their choices in life and how they behave or sin.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Well, think of it like this.

• Someone who is born with less empathy, as well as a disposition to anger.
• Someone born highly empathetic, and is usually patient or slow to anger.

Who do you think is more likely to commit murder — just based on those facts alone? Or don’t even go that far. Who is more likely to say something objectively uncharitable to a fellow human?

Or another way to look at it: Pretend BOTH commit the same uncharitable act. Based on the information I’ve given you (this is just an illustration, after all), who is more likely to be MORE responsible for that act? Who is LESS responsible?

Don’t make the example more complicated than it needs to be. It’s just an illustration of the fact that people’s behaviors are related to their wiring — and not merely a 100% pure act of free choice (like an angel).

 

[Irishmom2]

I don’t see why we need to talk about who is more culpable or likely to commit what sin. Everyone, regardless of their personality, is responsible for their behavior. They don’t get any kind of pass because they “can’t help” themselves. They need to own their personality and deal with it, no excuses.
We are all sinners.

 

[o_mlly]

… our unchosen, born predispositions to sinful behavior …

These are our crosses. Perhaps we see them in others, certainly in ourselves. What we do not see in others is the graces that accompany their crosses.

We trust that His graces are more that sufficient to carry the crosses we bear. All we must do is choose to accept His grace.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do these kinds of dispositions to certain sinful behaviors (e.g., prone to sloth or anger or lust) reduce personal responsibility

Yes. I would also say that some kinds of trauma as well as genetic or biological causes. To take it to one extreme end of the spectrum - people who are in the throws of a psychotic episode are not culpable for their actions.

 

[rom]

Do these kinds of dispositions to certain sinful behaviors (e.g., prone to sloth or anger or lust) reduce personal responsibility?

Yes, they reduce personal responsibility. How much? That would have to be evaluated on a case to case basis. However, some dispositions to sin are not genetic or biological, but are acquired by bad habit or previous sins, or by negligence in nurturing virtue. It is much more difficult to escape personal responsibility in these cases.

It seems no one would freely choose hell, unless they were somehow “wired” to want it, in the first place. For who would choose against God, if God is precisely what is supposed to make humans happy?

The object of our will is the good, so we don’t choose any evil thing except under the semblance of good. For this reason, I think that most people do not really choose hell directly, but when they love wealth, power, sex, etc., more than God, then they are choosing hell dressed as “good.”

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Neither.

You still have the free will to choose good or evil.