Is a sinner who sins due to addiction less culpable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tommy999

Guest
Some in the medical and counseling professions consider certain forms of addiction (alcoholism, substance abuse, homosexuality, pornography, gambling, etc) to not be just moral failures, but can be influenced by medical and genetic factors that can actually change the wiring of the brain.

If addiction can have a medical/genetic component to it, is the sinner less culpable for such sins rooted in addiction after they become addicted?

Background: I recently took a college course on addiction, and am a Christian, so I was contemplating this question and wanted your (name removed by moderator)ut and help on the proper perspective to take. Much appreciated! My apologies if this is a dumb question.
 
Some in the medical and counseling professions consider certain forms of addiction (alcoholism, substance abuse, homosexuality, pornography, gambling, etc) to not be just moral failures, but can be influenced by medical and genetic factors that can actually change the wiring of the brain.

If addiction can have a medical/genetic component to it, is the sinner less culpable for such sins rooted in addiction after they become addicted?

Background: I recently took a college course on addiction, and am a Christian, so I was contemplating this question and wanted your (name removed by moderator)ut and help on the proper perspective to take. Much appreciated! My apologies if this is a dumb question.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
 
Following on from #1735 (which states “can be diminished or even nullified”) - not a sure guarantee in every situation/case as we read in -
CCC #1791 " This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

So as the OP gave as examples alcoholism, substance abuse, homosexuality, pornography, gambling, IMO, that even if there is a factor influencing these actions (the same as does concupiscence is a factor yet we are still culpable), then there has to be an initial consent of the will to the first time or even for a period of time at the beginning of the ‘habit forming’ - for a habit to be formed.

And for this first or period of time at the start, I think a person is culpable as they are choosing to engage in these actions knowing they are wrong, and they have to persist in these before a habit is formed, without correcting their behavior… Otherwise if they corrected their behavior, then no habit would be formed.

Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic and such a person can never ‘just have one drink’ - so they know they have to abstain fully from alcohol if they are to avoid falling back into the old habits.
 
Your reply along with that of @Vico is why I created this topic, as I try to reconcile the two positions as a person of faith and as someone who respects and acknowledges science.
 
Your reply along with that of @Vico is why I created this topic, as I try to reconcile the two positions as a person of faith and as someone who respects and acknowledges science.
There is no formal sin without it being voluntary. And each act or omission is either voluntary or involuntary. For it to be a personal choice requires it to be voluntary and also have sufficient reflection. These can be helpful, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. …

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for late reply.

I think it depends on which habit is of concern.

Alcoholism - (same as cigarette smoking) starts off with just one, then soon becomes an addiction. I guess the same goes for substance abuse e.g. chroming as well as shooting up drugs. Homosexuality like any sexual act can become an addiction as can pornography or gambling.

IMO, all the above start as they meet some need within the individual whether that be emotional, psychological or social or some mix of all three. Then there is the influence from others - ads everywhere many years ago portraying cigarette smoking as macho and for the women seen as sexy, alluring, sophisticated etc. Peer influence too can be a factor on those who wish to fit in/ be liked/accepted/have friends to hang with instead of being an outsider/loner.

None of these are good enough reasons, imo, to negate the start of taking up these habits. Once ingrained they are certainly difficult to give up, some more difficult for some people than it is for other people. And the situation a person is in, one may or may not be able to be changed for various reasons perhaps not for some time until these other factors are resolved or changed e.g. groups of friends one hangs with.

But that doesn’t excuse the person from not trying to quit the habit, turn their life around, as we know that with God’s grace nothing is impossible. And it can be a few to many failures before one is successful in quitting the habit for good and the struggle to do so can be intense. But still a Catholic or Christian must not give up, but continue to beg for help from God and align his own efforts in co-operating with these graces to quit. It is possible, because people quit these behaviours all the time.

Science tries to explain things by finding a physical cause for everything and they discount God and His grace. Science tries to find a cure for everything (which is a good), but again they are discounting God’s Will.

I think the danger for some people is to say - science says the cause is XYZ, therefore it isn’t my fault, therefore I have not incurred any sin/guilt; therefore I do not have to change my ways, because I can’t as science says it is due to XYZ. So they think this then frees them from making any effort to change, to make sacrifices in giving up XYZ and its associated activities/friends etc.

Whilst science finds the physical cause of some behaviors, then there is still the will to engage in these behaviors. For some things there are drugs available to help reduce the cravings etc, and there is therapy and support groups - all to help the individual in their decision and efforts to give up the habit. But it still is up to the individual to give up the habit - no-one nor anything can take the place of the effort/wll of the individual in trying to change and then remain strong to not choose to go back to their old ways.

Science can explain things - physical & psychological, but a lot of these habits are started within the will, and it is up to the will to stop along with any aids to do so that is available.
 
Last edited:
They can be in some cases. But it isn’t a “get out of jail free” card either. One’s confessor can advise in these situations.
 
Let me go off on a slight tangent—

There is a reasonable expectation in our culture that a sick person seeks healing and cure.

So to simply “be” addicted and make no effort to work through it—you’re not allowed to sit back and say “whoopsie, I’m afraid I’m just so terribly addicted I had to do that thing”
 
If addiction can have a medical/genetic component to it, is the sinner less culpable for such sins rooted in addiction after they become addicted?
Yes, even without an underlying medical, genetic or environmental motivator.

Any culpability would be proportional to the level of deliberate consent and the level knowledge of the sinfulness of the act.

The medical, genetic and environmental factors could be classified as being some of the things that influence deliberate consent and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top