I looked at girls in a movie and got turned on. Was this a mortal sin?

[camerong]

Yes and there’s nothing wrong with the Pope giving a general statement about the need to go to confession, it’s part of a regular routine.

It’s a fallacy to argue using a generalized example of the Pope recommending confession, to a specific example such as in this thread. Going to confession because someone got turned on after watching Halloween II is absurd, and neither does the article from Zenit support such a ridiculous example.

It’s also a red herring, two fallacies in one post, excellent.

Ah, sarcasm and claims of logical fallacies: the plague of online debates. Consider trying to respond to points and be constructive, rather than marking up each post for what you consider to be fallacies. This attitude will not get you far on this forum.

My point is that it is never absurd to go to confession. It is a holy sacrament of which we can literally not get enough. Every day would not be too often for someone struggling with a particularly tricky sin, like lust, as is the OP (shown in this thread and others he has made).

Why is it absurd to go to confession for a small sin that one nevertheless struggles with? Or do you argue there was no sin at all, even though he did not divert his eyes when he realized he was getting aroused? In that case, why is it absurd to go to confession for something one is not certain it is a sin? If I have misunderstood any of your assertions, rather than claiming straw man or something similar, please correct me.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Ah, sarcasm and claims of logical fallacies: the plague of online debates. Consider trying to respond to points and be constructive, rather than marking up each post for what you consider to be fallacies. This attitude will not get you far on this forum.

My point is that it is never absurd to go to confession. It is a holy sacrament of which we can literally not get enough. Every day would not be too often for someone struggling with a particularly tricky sin, like lust, as is the OP (shown in this thread and others he has made).

Why is it absurd to go to confession for a small sin that one nevertheless struggles with? Or do you argue there was no sin at all, even though he did not divert his eyes when he realized he was getting aroused? In that case, why is it absurd to go to confession for something one is not certain it is a sin? If I have misunderstood any of your assertions, rather than claiming straw man or something similar, please correct me.

Is it my fault that you committed a fallacy? Look at the example you gave, and look at the situation of the OP. You used a statement by the Pope about going to confession to use it as evidence that the OP must go to confession for his little incident.

The Pope was giving a general statement about confession, and perhaps it was more of a reminder to the general Catholic population, it wasn’t meant to be used to say that the OP is to go to confession for his little incident specifically. The Pope’s statement has no bearing on the morality or lack of pertaining to the incident; hency my claim that it was a red herring as well as the fallacy of arguing from a general situation to a specific one. (Accident)

It’s not absurd to go to confession for a small sin, it’s the manner in which it’s being promoted here. People seem to be going to confession purely through guilt which isn’t even true penance. Since there is no definite resolution as to whether he committed a sin or not, it makes it even more absurd to recommend going to confession over it. It builds scrupulosity and mental problems, not comfort and true penance.

I am definitely being constructive, at least I analyse the situation rather than prescribing confession as the medicine for every single problem in the moral theology section. I think I’ve said enough here, yes, you’ve committed two fallacies, which is pretty obvious – and I don’t think I’m in the wrong for pointing it out, it renders your argument invalid.

Good luck Dr. Guilt.

 

[camerong]

Is it my fault that you committed a fallacy? Look at the example you gave, and look at the situation of the OP. You used a statement by the Pope about going to confession to use it as evidence that the OP **must **go to confession for his little incident.

The Pope was giving a general statement about confession, and perhaps it was more of a reminder to the general Catholic population, it wasn’t meant to be used to say that the OP is to go to confession for his little incident specifically. The Pope’s statement has no bearing on the morality or lack of pertaining to the incident; hency my claim that it was a red herring as well as the fallacy of arguing from a general situation to a specific one. (Accident)

It’s not absurd to go to confession for a small sin, it’s the manner in which it’s being promoted here. People seem to be going to confession purely through guilt which isn’t even true penance. Since there is no definite resolution as to whether he committed a sin or not, it makes it even more absurd to recommend going to confession over it. It builds scrupulosity and mental problems, not comfort and true penance.

I am definitely being constructive, at least I analyse the situation rather than prescribing confession as the medicine for every single problem in the moral theology section. I think I’ve said enough here, yes, you’ve committed two fallacies, which is pretty obvious – and I don’t think I’m in the wrong for pointing it out, it renders your argument invalid.

Good luck Dr. Guilt.

No one ever said the OP *must *go to confession, as you assert, but rather that he should go to confession. Further, although it *seems *to you that guilt is the reason we advocate confession, that is most definitely *not *the reason I assert it, and I doubt it is the reason others advocate it as well. Although I will say that relieving guilt is a vital benefit of confession, and guilt tends to make this kind of struggle even worse, so I suppose guilt is part of the concern here. But my primary reason (and I suspect that of others here) to advocate confession is its power to help people overcome their sin and grow in devotion.

 

[OpenSource]

The point is people shouldn’t be recommending to go to confession like that, the only conscience that’s being developed is a deeply scrupulous and guilty one, which is reprehensible.

Better safe than sorry is ridiculous. That’s not even true penance.

I disagree. A good confessor will help with scruples. The only that that’s ridiculous is trivializing other people’s problems.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

I watched Halloween 2 and there were a few naked or semi-naked girls that I got turned on by. I didn’t try to do anything wrong, but fear I might have. I only tried to look at breasts because I didn’t know that was grave at that time but at some points I did a little more. I just want answers. I can clarify almost anything if you ask.

From what I understand of Matthew 5:29 (“But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”), the word lust is translated from the same word as covetness. The Bible also speaks of Jesus ‘lusting’ (longing) to be with his disciples. It seems like to me Jesus was talking about something more than a passing, fleeting emotional and biological response. Think about it, God gave you sexual desires. We’re to disciple ourselves and learn self-control, but to say that having a natural human reaction makes you worthy of being charbroiled for all of eternity is taking that verse way out of context.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No one ever said the OP *must *go to confession, as you assert, but rather that he should go to confession. Further, although it *seems *to you that guilt is the reason we advocate confession, that is most definitely *not *the reason I assert it, and I doubt it is the reason others advocate it as well. Although I will say that relieving guilt is a vital benefit of confession, and guilt tends to make this kind of struggle even worse, so I suppose guilt is part of the concern here. But my primary reason (and I suspect that of others here) to advocate confession is its power to help people overcome their sin and grow in devotion.

Sorry but there’s barely a semantic difference between “should” and “must”. Just thought I’d point that out. One is only slightly higher in terms of priority than the other.

 

[Polycarp1]

Temptations come into our lives and sins of impurity can have a toe hold as we were created with an natural instinct for procreation and Satan like to pervert this into impurity. The temptation is in itself not a sin as we all are tempted, but it is what we do with it that counts. We should immediately reject the temptation and ask God to make us stronger spiritually. If give into it and act on it, or we allow it to linger in our thoughts in order to derive a lustful pleasure from it, it becomes sinful.

We must also avoid “the near occasion of sin”. We should avoid, places, people literature, movies, show etc that will lead us into temptation just as an alcoholic should avoid sitting in bars.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

By all occasions of sin, do you mean avoid the obvious stuff like porn stores, or are you so strict on this, this means anything that isn’t on Nick Jr.

 

[Polycarp1]

By all occasions of sin, do you mean avoid the obvious stuff like porn stores, or are you so strict on this, this means anything that isn’t on Nick Jr.

We know our own shortcomings and weaknesses and should avoid anything that can expolit them. It is not always possible as we are not all meant to enter monasteries but as much as we can control our environment to avoid situations that can lead us into sin we should. We must strive for perfection and it is a lifelong process. This is spiritual warfare so why give the enemy ammo to use against us?

When we fail we repent and try to do better. God knows we are not perfect and can do nothing on our own but He wants us to try and if we are making a sincere effort He will give us the grace to overcome the weakness.

For example if you see an attractive girl and you start to get impure thoughts, say a prayer. If the girl is dressed overly provocatively say a prayer for her as she may not feel that she is loved for her true self. Thank God for the beauty of His creation as all created things reflect the glory of God. That makes the temptation backfire on Satan. It make take awhile but he’ll back off.

 

[camerong]

Sorry but there’s barely a semantic difference between “should” and “must”. Just thought I’d point that out. One is only slightly higher in terms of priority than the other.

Really? That doesn’t seem to me to be true. The Pope has said we *should *go to confession every week. Is this nearly the equivalent of ordering us to do so? We *should *eat 5-8 servings of vegetables. We *should *do all kinds of things that we absolutely do not do, and have no real intention of doing. No, it seems the is much day light between should and must.

But I think it raises another important point. We should never be afraid to tell someone they should do something for fear that it would be improper to tell someone they must do it. I could never tell someone they *must *go to confession after committing grave sin–it is, after all, their decision–but surely I should be able to tell them they should do so.

 

[camerong]

By all occasions of sin, do you mean avoid the obvious stuff like porn stores, or are you so strict on this, this means anything that isn’t on Nick Jr.

I think it depends upon the person, and the struggle. Someone who does not struggle with lust have no problem watching a movie with nudity. You should avoid things that make you think impure thoughts. If that’s everything but Nick Jr., then there you go. It is far better to be bored and devout than entertained and sinful.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Really? That doesn’t seem to me to be true. The Pope has said we *should *go to confession every week. Is this nearly the equivalent of ordering us to do so? We *should *eat 5-8 servings of vegetables. We *should *do all kinds of things that we absolutely do not do, and have no real intention of doing. No, it seems the is much day light between should and must.

The Pope’s a theologian, not a linguist. Neither are you the latter. Both “should” and “must” carry a meaning of urgency and priority than other auxiliary verbs such as “can”, “may”, or “might”. In fact, as a writer, I sometimes consult an online dictionary on how to use certain words. Here’s their entry for “should”:

–auxiliary verb

1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

Like it or not, “should” is but a euphemism at best but no matter how soft you make a blow, you’re still hitting someone.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think it depends upon the person, and the struggle. Someone who does not struggle with lust have no problem watching a movie with nudity. You should avoid things that make you think impure thoughts. If that’s everything but Nick Jr., then there you go. It is far better to be bored and devout than entertained and sinful.

I’m not so much for entertaining myself with either porn (I find video game violence more satisfying ) or Nick Jr. (unless you want your adult/teenage brain disintegrated) but I find nothing more devastating to your sanity than restlessness and boredom.

This goes especially for those who suffer stress on a less than healthy basis.