Faith vs Reason: Conflict?

[PRmerger]

I accept that faith and reason are not incompatible. Truth can never contradict truth, and both faith and reason are paths to understanding Truth.

However, it does seem to me that some “articles of faith” (and I use the term loosely) are in conflict with reason.

For example, Jesus says, “If a man looks lustfully at a woman he has already committed adultery in his heart”. *Surely reason would dictate that a lustful thought is not equal to the **actual act *of adultery!

Yet, I believe the faithful must take Jesus at his word.

How does one resolve this conflict? Is it reasonable to believe that a **thought **–even if one indulges in this lustful thought–is equal to the love-destroying act of adultery?

 

[BlazingBolt]

Lust, commiting adultery with your heart, is not equal to actually commiting adultery.

Christ is simply warning us about lust. Indulging in Lust is a sin in itself, which is what he is pointing out, and unchecked it will eventually lead to even more serious sins.

This is also important to understand in the sense that we can not go around testing the limits and boundaries of sin, trying to find “loop holes”. If we do we weaken our ability to actually stay free of sin.

 

[Genesis315]

Sin is in the heart if man. Man sins against God in his soul in thought or deed. The eternal consequence is the same.

That being said, sins also have temporal consequences. The act of adultery will have greater negative effects on others. After it has been forgiven in the Confessional, it will require more retribution to either right the wrong in this life, or to appease justice through temporal punishment in purgatory.

 

[Atreyu]

I accept that faith and reason are not incompatible. Truth can never contradict truth, and both faith and reason are paths to understanding Truth.

However, it does seem to me that some “articles of faith” (and I use the term loosely) are in conflict with reason.

For example, Jesus says, “If a man looks lustfully at a woman he has already committed adultery in his heart”. *Surely reason would dictate that a lustful thought is not equal to the **actual act ***of adultery!

Yet, I believe the faithful must take Jesus at his word.

How does one resolve this conflict? Is it reasonable to believe that a **thought **–even if one indulges in this lustful thought–is equal to the love-destroying act of adultery?

I think Jesus is using exaggeration here to teach the fact that lust - that is even thinking of a woman lustfully - is still a sin and grave matter.

 

[Liberian]

How does one resolve this conflict? Is it reasonable to believe that a **thought **–even if one indulges in this lustful thought–is equal to the love-destroying act of adultery?

PR Merger,

Genesis315 is right. While the eternal consequences of lust and of adultery are the same, the temporal consequences of adultery are much graver. In my Protestant days I called it “damage control”: lust will not, by itself, lead to illegitimate children and divorces, but the corrosion to the soul of the sinner is the same.

• Liberian

 

[StCsDavid]

I think Jesus is using exaggeration here to teach the fact that lust - that is even thinking of a woman lustfully - is still a sin and grave matter.

I would beg to differ that Christ was exaggerating. Christ calls us more than anything for a conversion of heart; not just a repression of a sinful will. So if it is in the will to commit the sin, then the soul is still wounded in that respect. Adultry is a sin of the will. The carrying out of the physical side of it is a consequence of that will. So if one looks lustfully at another woman, one has indeed committed adultry.

 

[PRmerger]

PR Merger,

Genesis315 is right. While the eternal consequences of lust and of adultery are the same,

• Liberian

I really struggle with understanding this.

Take Person A: she indulges in a 10 minute fantasy of a romantic interlude with hunky James Bondsman Daniel Craig. She neither lies to her husband, nor engages in any action that’s hurtful.

Person B calls up a motel to set up a rendezvous with a co-worker, lies to his wife about having to work late, picks up this co-worker, gets naked and actually commits adultery.

How could it be just that Person A’s consequences are the same as Person B’s? How could Person A be commiting adultery??

I get that sinful thoughts can erode the will and lead to sinful actions…but I don’t get that thoughts are the same as deeds.

 

[StCsDavid]

I really struggle with understanding this.

Take Person A: she indulges in a 10 minute fantasy of a romantic interlude with hunky James Bondsman Daniel Craig. She neither lies to her husband, nor engages in any action that’s hurtful.

Person B calls up a motel to set up a rendezvous with a co-worker, lies to his wife about having to work late, picks up this co-worker, gets naked and actually commits adultery.

How could it be just that Person A’s consequences are the same as Person B’s? How could Person A be commiting adultery??

I get that sinful thoughts can erode the will and lead to sinful actions…but I don’t get that thoughts are the same as deeds.

So you would posit that adultery happens at the moment of sexual intercourse; however, that’s not what Christ identifies.

I’m not sure Person A has committed adultery either. After all, we’re talking about a ten minute musing over a fictional character. Let’s kick it up a notch and say her fantasy is about a coworker and that she continues this fantasy day after day. Now the fantasy is something in her will…not just a fleeting thought.

I believe people often struggle with this because they confuse thought and will. Our passing sexual thoughts are part of our humanity that God has gifted to us. Like all gifts, we can use it for good or evil. So if I see a good looking woman on the bus who is dressed provocatively and I have a fleeting sexual thought about her, the way I turn it into a good is to thank God for my sexuality and then pray for her conversion so she comes to understand her own true dignity. Were I wanting to turn that into an evil, I would continue to stare at her; fantasize about her; maybe try to pick her up so I could use her. My sexual thought has turned into my sexual will.

 

[PRmerger]

So you would posit that adultery happens at the moment of sexual intercourse; however, that’s not what Christ identifies.

Not necessarily. It involves the entire scenario I presented for Person B. But it’s a series of actions, not thoughts.

Therein lies my struggle. Reason tells me that *actions *are adulterous, not thoughts. Jesus says otherwise.

I’m not sure Person A has committed adultery either. After all, we’re talking about a ten minute musing over a fictional character. Let’s kick it up a notch and say her fantasy is about a coworker and that she continues this fantasy day after day. Now the fantasy is something in her will…not just a fleeting thought.

I believe people often struggle with this because they confuse thought and will. Our passing sexual thoughts are part of our humanity that God has gifted to us.

In my scenario, Person A’s thoughts are not “passing”. She *intentionally *indulges in a fantasy.

So is this, then adultery?

 

[Catholic_Action]

I think philosophically the key question is intent if you look briefly with lust at someone and then forget about them that is a minor thing. On the other hand if you look on someone and form the intent to commit adultery with them, even if circumstances prevent you carrying out your intention, then you are morally guilty of adultery. The intention is equivalent to the deed.

Thomas Aquinas, in his Scholastic fashion says newadvent.org/summa/2074.htm

As stated (5), sin may be in the reason, not only in respect of reason’s proper act, but sometimes in respect of its directing human actions. Now it is evident that reason directs not only external acts, but also internal passions. Consequently when the reason fails in directing the internal passions, sin is said to be in the reason, as also when it fails in directing external actions. Now it fails, in two ways, in directing internal passions: first, when it commands unlawful passions; for instance, when a man deliberately provokes himself to a movement of anger, or of lust: secondly, when it fails to check the unlawful movement of a passion; for instance, when a man, having deliberately considered that a rising movement of passion is inordinate, continues, notwithstanding, to dwell [immoratur] upon it, and fails to drive it away. And in this sense the sin of morose delectation is said to be in the reason…

…Delectation is indeed in the appetitive power as its proximate principle; but it is in the reason as its first mover, in accordance with what has been stated above (1), viz. that actions which do not pass into external matter are subjected in their principles.

… Reason has its proper elicited act about its proper object; but it exercises the direction of all the objects of those lower powers that can be directed by the reason: and accordingly delectation about sensible objects comes also under the direction of reason.

… Delectation is said to be morose not from a delay of time, but because the reason in deliberating dwells [immoratur] thereon, and fails to drive it away, “deliberately holding and turning over what should have been cast aside as soon as it touched the mind,” as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12).

 

[Maranatha]

I really struggle with understanding this.

Take Person A: she indulges in a 10 minute fantasy of a romantic interlude with hunky James Bondsman Daniel Craig. She neither lies to her husband, nor engages in any action that’s hurtful.

Person B calls up a motel to set up a rendezvous with a co-worker, lies to his wife about having to work late, picks up this co-worker, gets naked and actually commits adultery.

How could it be just that Person A’s consequences are the same as Person B’s? How could Person A be commiting adultery??

I get that sinful thoughts can erode the will and lead to sinful actions…but I don’t get that thoughts are the same as deeds.

When the sin of adultery is committed there are two parties offended - the spouse and God.

All God has ever done is love you - even to the point of giving his only son for your benefit. When you turn your heart away from God, it’s like spitting in His face and on all He has done for you.

So my answer is yes, sins of the heart are just as bad as since of the flesh.

 

[PRmerger]

When you turn your heart away from God, it’s like spitting in His face and on all He has done for you.

Yes–all sin is an affront to the Most Holy God. But Catholic teaching does state that some sins are more egregious.

So my answer is yes, sins of the heart are just as bad as since of the flesh.

I don’t see how that follows. All sins wound us. But I can’t conclude that a thought is equivalent to actually doing the dirty deed.

 

[Maranatha]

Yes–all sin is an affront to the Most Holy God. But Catholic teaching does state that some sins are more egregious.

I don’t see how that follows. All sins wound us. But I can’t conclude that a thought is equivalent to actually doing the dirty deed.

I understand that some sins are more serious then others. From our perspective, what matters is if the sin severs us from God. These moral sins kill the soul. Only God can judge if any particular action is mortal or venial. What’s the difference if one sin servers us from god and another really severs us from God? Only one sin is unforgivable.

 

[StCsDavid]

Not necessarily. It involves the entire scenario I presented for Person B. But it’s a series of actions, not thoughts.

Therein lies my struggle. Reason tells me that *actions *are adulterous, not thoughts. Jesus says otherwise.

In my scenario, Person A’s thoughts are not “passing”. She *intentionally *indulges in a fantasy.

So is this, then adultery?

Okay,so Person A in essence has made a conscious decision to pick up the steamy romantic novel for the purpose of getting aroused and fantasizing about the fictional character. In that case, she has sinned. It’s no different then her husband picking up a Playboy to look at naked women for the same reason. Her pornography is literature…his is pictoral. Using her imagination she is looking lustfully upon the fictional character for the purpose of creating the steamy thoughts. So the sin is in the will…not just the thought.

 

[Ruthie]

StC’s David said it well.

PRMerger, you also said it well, without knowing it, when you said “Therein lies my struggle. Reason tells me that *actions *are adulterous, not thoughts. Jesus says otherwise.”

“Jesus says otherwise.” Who are you going to believe? Your fallible human reason, or the perfect Son of God?

So much of the sexual miseries of humanity result from the sexual objectification of people. And that’s what a sexual fantasy does. We don’t fantasize about having an intelligent conversation! We think only about what having sex with that person would be like, which makes them sex objects.

And a sexual fantasy is more than just a lustful daydream. It is also fantasizing about committing adultery and/or fornication. If we allow ourselves to keep having that fantasy, we are keeping God at a distance. We are telling Him that our fantasies are more important to us than Jesus’ teaching.

And I don’t think that is a very wise thing to do!

And please understand that I got to here from where you are. I’ve walked a mile (or so!) in your shoes! In my case, some fantasies led to action. If the fantasy had been absent, I wouldn’t have committed that particular act of fornication, and maybe my first confession would have been shorter than 45 minutes!

I love my husband of 10 years second only to Jesus. Squelching my fantasies about other men only makes me appreciate him more.

I can’t remember if anyone has recommended that you get The Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West. It’s a great book, and helped me gain a deeper understanding of this teaching of Jesus (and of lots of other stuff, too).

Buy it here and support CA! link

His Theology of the Body for Beginners is also very good.

 

[PRmerger]

StC’s David said it well.

PRMerger, you also said it well, without knowing it, when you said “Therein lies my struggle. Reason tells me that *actions *are adulterous, not thoughts. Jesus says otherwise.”

“Jesus says otherwise.” Who are you going to believe? Your fallible human reason, or the perfect Son of God?

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I accept in faith all that Jesus has taught, through Scripture, through the living Magisterium. I accept what Jesus says about lustful thoughts being adulterous.

It’s only that this particular teaching conflicts with my reason. If thoughts are equal to deeds, then why shouldn’t my desire to help the poor be sufficient. It shouldn’t matter that I never really lift a hand to assist anyone!

Conceptually, I believe that there should never be any conflict with faith and reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there anyone else in these forums who can understand my conflict?

Does it not seem to conflict with reason to declare that a thought is in essence the same as the deed?

 

[Liberian]

Take Person A: she indulges in a 10 minute fantasy of a romantic interlude with hunky James Bondsman Daniel Craig. She neither lies to her husband, nor engages in any action that’s hurtful.

Person B calls up a motel to set up a rendezvous with a co-worker, lies to his wife about having to work late, picks up this co-worker, gets naked and actually commits adultery.

PR Merger,

Having engaged in entirely too many “10-minute fantasies,” I can state with some assurance that their effects on the soul are indeed drastic. But the temporal consequences are considerably lighter than those of actual adultery.

• Liberian

 

[The_Augustinian]

I never had trouble with the passage, so I’m not sure why you would, either. Jesus is not equating actual adultery with impure thoughts. He is merely saying that impure thoughts are also mortal sins, and that the inner desires of men are very important, not merely the external actions.

 

[Catholic_Action]

Is there anyone else in these forums who can understand my conflict?

Does it not seem to conflict with reason to declare that a thought is in essence the same as the deed?

What about an intention being equivalent to a deed?