Homosexuality and diminished free will = no sin?

[Future_Prodigy]

Before diving into the question let me give a bit of a background:

The teaching of suicide has changed over the last 500 years (since Trent) and how the new cathechism acknowledges this. Something to the effct of once free will is diminished, and now that sucide is seen as a mental disorder this has been acknowledged, an action does not bear the bull weight of other sinful actions. **So basically when anyone takes their life they are acting on dimenished free will and choice and this renders there action unsinful. **

Now this relates to homosexuality does it not? If modern science is right then there might be homosexuals who are born that way (not implying them all) and there ability to make a free choice is diminished and can not this exact case be made for this type of situation? This i believe is ‘sort of’ where the Anglican church is sitting but the synod is this month so we will know more soon.

 

[bilop]

Before diving into the question let me give a bit of a background:

The teaching of suicide has changed over the last 500 years (since Trent) and how the new cathechism acknowledges this. Something to the effct of once free will is diminished, and now that sucide is seen as a mental disorder this has been acknowledged, an action does not bear the bull weight of other sinful actions. **So basically when anyone takes their life they are acting on dimenished free will and choice and this renders there action unsinful. **

Now this relates to homosexuality does it not? If modern science is right then there might be homosexuals who are born that way (not implying them all) and there ability to make a free choice is diminished and can not this exact case be made for this type of situation? This i believe is ‘sort of’ where the Anglican church is sitting but the synod is this month so we will know more soon.

I don’t believe you are 100% correct on suicide. The Church does not say suicide is always the result od diminished free will, and therefore unsinful. It only says that the person MAY not have free will. I would think many suicides are still mortally sinful, unless the person truly did not know right from wrong. I think it is analagous to the insanity defense for murder; just being crazy doesn’t remit the guilt, you have to be unaware your actions are wrong.

Likewise, people with same sex attraction are not without free will. They have an inclination to a disordered sexuality (just like a man who has severe inclination to cheat on his wife has a disordered sexuality). However, they should know that it is wrong, and resist the inclination. The inclination in no way vitiates free will.

God Bless

 

[Riley259]

I don’t believe you are 100% correct on suicide. The Church does not say suicide is always the result od diminished free will, and therefore unsinful. It only says that the person MAY not have free will. I would think many suicides are still mortally sinful, unless the person truly did not know right from wrong. I think it is analagous to the insanity defense for murder; just being crazy doesn’t remit the guilt, you have to be unaware your actions are wrong.

Likewise, people with same sex attraction are not without free will. They have an inclination to a disordered sexuality (just like a man who has severe inclination to cheat on his wife has a disordered sexuality). However, they should know that it is wrong, and resist the inclination. The inclination in no way vitiates free will.

God Bless

I agree. We’re not just simply animals who have to act on our instincts. We can demonstrate self-control and have free will to do so. I don’t know anybody who thinks that engaging in homosexual behavior is beyond one’s control.

 

[franksta]

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

**Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. **

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

The Catechism’s statement on suicide does not represent a change in the Church’s teaching. Suicide has always been, and remains, “gravely contrary” to love of God and self. And as has been mentioned, it says that “grave psychological disturbances” CAN diminish culpability, but not with certitude. But we can and should always pray for all the dead.

But I don’t see how this applies to homosexuality at all. No matter how intrinsic a person’s inclination to homosexuality, homosexual acts are always “acts of grave depravity”. The inclination can never be equated with the act, else we become animals. “My genes made me do it” is only an excuse if you believe we have no control over our impulses, or that humans have an absolute right to sexual expression–both of which are contrary to Scripture and Church teaching.

I suppose, as full disclosure, I should mention that I am a celibate man with SSA, so I am well-acquainted with the subject.

Peace and all good.

 

[franksta]

And I think you’re right about where Anglicans are sitting (I am ex-TEC and ex-“continuing Anglican”). TEC has already “decided” that its understanding of biology trumps Scripture and Tradition; I’ll offer a prayer that ACofC doesn’t follow suit.

 

[rpp]

I think we must also remember that “diminish” does not mean “eliminate” when referring to responsibility.

I think the church is trying to distinguish, for example, between a person suffering from schizophrenia and one who is sad because his girlfriend dumped him. The first may have uncontrollable “voices” in his head telling him to harm himself, the other person is in pain and consciously and deliberately chooses death as a means to eliminate his (temporary) emotional pain. The first certainly has significantly diminished responsibility because his free-will has been compromised. The second example I leave to God.

This does not apply to homosexual acts. As one person correctly pointed, free will still present. The same applies to those who commit fornication, adultery or the solitary vice.

So even if homosexual attraction were shown to be of genetic origin (no proof for this, just a good deal of wishful thinking in disguise!) it does not make any difference. Because the disorder does not affect free will.

 

[rpp]

And I think you’re right about where Anglicans are sitting (I am ex-TEC and ex-“continuing Anglican”). TEC has already “decided” that its understanding of biology trumps Scripture and Tradition; I’ll offer a prayer that ACofC doesn’t follow suit.

I am sorry, but you have used some abbreviations and terms I am not familiar with. What are “TEC”, “continuing-Anglican” and ACofC?

Sorry to be so dense.

 

[franksta]

It’s not a dense question at all, I was using Anglican-insider language.

TEC is The Episcopal Church. They no longer use ECUSA because their borders include several foreign countries.

ACofC is Anglican Church of Canada.

Continuing Anglicans are, for the most part, groups that broke away from TEC or ACofC because of new prayerbooks, women’s ordination, etc. They maintain a conservative Anglican identity but are not linked to TEC/ACofC or Canterbury.

 

[LilyM]

Remember that lack of free will only POSSIBLY (not automatically) removes the mental aspect required for mortal sin, and even then may only reduce it to the level required for venial sin rather than rendering it sinless.

Sexual activity, I’d say, most always falls into an at least partly consensual framework, and therefore would most always be at least venially sinful.

It’d be difficult to argue, barring rape or some such, that it wasn’t consented to at some point.

 

[rpp]

It’s not a dense question at all, I was using Anglican-insider language.

TEC is The Episcopal Church. They no longer use ECUSA because their borders include several foreign countries.

ACofC is Anglican Church of Canada.

Continuing Anglicans are, for the most part, groups that broke away from TEC or ACofC because of new prayerbooks, women’s ordination, etc. They maintain a conservative Anglican identity but are not linked to TEC/ACofC or Canterbury.

Thank you kindly. :tiphat:

 

[puzzleannie]

I Likewise, people with same sex attraction are not without free will. They have an inclination to a disordered sexuality (just like a man who has severe inclination to cheat on his wife has a disordered sexuality). However, they should know that it is wrong, and resist the inclination. The inclination in no way vitiates free will.

God Bless

I may be born with diabetes, or aquire it due to some cause later in life. Either way, if I make harmful food and lifestyle choices, I will do irreparable damage to my organs and bodily systems, cumulative over time. Part of that disorder is sometimes a compulsion to eat harmful foods. Just having the compulsion does not absolve me from following my diet, and the damage is still done, no matter what my reasons from deviating from my prescribed diet and medication.

a homosexual has a personality disorder. How it was acquired is not the point. Part of that disorder may be a strong compulsion to live and act in ways that are objectively sinful, morally reprehensible, and damaging to the body, psyche and soul. Such compulsion may be a factor that mitigates guilt for some individuals and in some circumstances, that is a subjective matter for that person to discuss with their confessor. However the damage inherent in a sinful action remains, regardless of how culpable the individual was in that action. The individual is still bound to get all the the help, pastoral, professional etc. he needs to cope with the disordered inclination and with any damaging effects it may have on his life.

what other denominations say is beside the point, if they cannot point to the authority given by Jesus Christ to interpret the commandments and teach on faith and morals on earth.

the changing interpretation of the individual culpability in cases of suicide, due to better understanding of psychological factors in such cases, is not and never has been a blanket declaration that suicide is not long objectively defined as a mortal sin, because it remains so defined. it is an admission that in some, if not most, cases mitigating factors lessen the individual’s free will to act. The act of suicide remains objectively sinful.

 

[ltbpoe43]

I’m not making the connection of how the “grave psychological disturbances” issue of suicide is even remotely linked to homosexual behavior - which is a choice.

We can always chose to abstain. Many single people do each day. Many married people do to for many reasons.

We can not cure our own mental illnesses which diminish our capacity to reason.

 

[Shlemele]

From my experiance I believ in a diminished capacity as far as homosexual behavior in cases where sexual abuse has taken place. We know that boys who were abused tend to become abusers later on in life and while this does not excuse behavion I think in the grand scheme of things it has to be taken into account. One of my friends is a lesbian and one of the first things I asked her is when were you abused. I believe very strongly that in cases of abuse there is dimisished (not eliminated) responsability because the act of violation skewed the psyche of the child and set them on a path not intended. If a girl is abused by the one man who should love her unconditionally how is she ever going to trust another man? How then can she be expected to never have feelings for someone? In the end she can’t have feelings for men because of her fear so she turns to women for comfort. It’s sad yes but we have to love and understand the individual before we pass total judgement.

 

[franksta]

I think Schlemele has a point about diminished capacity in situations of abuse, but I think in those cases you are dealing with issues of deep psychological disorders and sexual addictions. The Church teaches that those kind of issues can be “mitigating factors” in dealing with sin, but all people are called to pursue holiness. I try not to judge anyone at all because I don’t know what obstacles to holiness may be in their life, but to the extent that a person’s free will is still free, they should be moving toward holiness and away from disordered behavior (using “disordered” in the moral sense, not a psychological one). I think part of the problem is an underlying assumption that celibacy is a fate worse than death. The absence of sex isn’t hell, but the abuse of sex may send you there.

Puzzleannie’s analogy to diabetes is interesting. I once heard a Protestant minister who is “ex-gay” refer to homosexual attractions as a kind of “spiritual diabetes.” Diabetes is a disease that (at least at this point in history) can only be managed, not cured. Failing to be diligent–daily–in managing the disease can have disastrous consequences; you can’t take a day off from doing so.