My point wasn’t to have a semantic disagreement with you, my point was that impure thoughts/deeds are much different than the initial stimulation/arousal caused by the sight of an immodest woman. The former is definitely voluntary and sinful, the latter can be involuntary and is not sinful in and of itself.
My point about semantics was that the interpretation of “deed” or “act” predetermined the outcome of our discussion.
Every sin is an act (for this purpose failure to act is an act as well) or a deed (likewise). A choice upon which no action follows is still an act - an internal act of the mind. Without any of these, there can be no sin. This isn’t very complicated.
But what is complicated is to what extent something which is forced is an act. We can agree that if we do something at gun point, which means we’re forced and possibly inculpable, we do a deed or act, but we possibly do not sin.
The problem with impure thoughts or acts is whether we qualify them as acts or thoughts when they are forced. If we decide that something which is forced can never be an act or thought because there was no choice of the actor’s, then yes, one can never, by definition, be forced into impure acts or thoughts.
In this mode, a woman cannot force a man to elect to lust after her because that would be an internal contradiction: one can never force a voluntary choice. The only choice one can force is the choice under threat and threat obviously does not apply here.
However, you agree that a woman (or indeed a man) is able to cause involuntary arousal in a man (or a woman). I build on this point further and I raise that not only will simple physical stimulation (externally manifested by erection) happen in such case, but also that images will enter the man’s mind, not only a certain kind of pain will be felt in his reproductory organs. Those images, if they were voluntary, would qualify as “thoughts”. Now depending whether we qualify them as “thoughts” in these circumstances, where the man did not choose to invoke them, either impure thoughts can be forced on a man, or no thought of any kind whatsoever can be forced because if it is forced, it is not a thought and therefore the point is moot.
I also stick by my other point, that an excessive amount of very focused and forceful tempting can break a person’s will. I supposed intelligence agencies have done this to prisoners of war or other captives in order to break them.
I understand what you’re saying but I disagree. It would be akin to excusing spousal abuse in a marriage because that person had a history of that evil in their lives and they were eventually “broken” by seeing/experiencing it so often.
That is partially true and partially not true.
Any sin is a sin so long as it is voluntary. If it is partially voluntary, only the voluntary part is a sin. The same way, if full will is required for a mortal sin, something which was not chosen in a sufficiently full way by the actor cannot be a mortal sin because the element of will is lacking. This leads me to the conclusion that a defect of the actor’s will reduces his culpability. This is not to say that we are not responsible for bringing ourselves into a state of ignorance or paralysis of the will. However, it seems to me that in so far as previous experience compells the person to act in a way his will cannot oppose, for that part there can be no sin. If the effect is strong and compelling and yet not overwhelming, then there is a partial choice and a sin but possibly not a mortal one.
Where “act” or “did” or “thought” fits in here is material in so far as when we say “act” we either presuppose a voluntary choice or not. The voluntary element is crucial to a sin by the common definition, but is not crucial to all definitions of an act or did. This is especially true with thoughts, which are harder to define than acts. We can endlessly argue whether a “thought” not invoked or accepted by the “thinker” is a thought at all. This was exactly what caused the semantic problem in our discussion.
Still, ultimately the choice to sin or break free from sin is on the individual.
Yes, exactly, although I stress the importance of an act of will in sinning. No matter what a person does, to the extent the person was compelled by some force for which he is not accountable (this is crucial), to that extent the person is not sinning.
i tend to agree with th op in that the females are not entirely responsible…like the guy who goes to the beach to see the ladies wearing bikinis vs the guy who goes to the beach and sees the ladies wearing bikinis…
All I said was that I don’t think masturbation is always a mortal sin. In fact, and this is only my personal opinion, I think it’s a venial sin in most cases involving most people. I think the circumstances and motivation required to make one culpable for mortal sin don’t occur in most cases of masturbation.