Is putting oneself in a near occasion of sin a sin in and of itself?

[JRKH]

They are different sins…look we can stack up sins leading to each other all day long…

and these stacked up sins are SINS - not “near sins”.

It is a near of occasion for George to go to a particular bar …for he (to make it very clear) always gets drunk when he goes there…this can already be a sin for him…

The the sin is the intent to go and get drunk - not a “near occasion” but a sin.

and then he knows that getting drunk there almost always leads him to sexual sins…so the very mortal sin of drunkeness is also a near occasion of sexual sin for him…

So has committed a second sin - not a “near occasion” but a sin.

(so actually in his case his near occasion of sin…is already a sin on two counts…but anyhow…even a mortal sin can be then a near occasion of another mortal sin…)

Not at all - there was never a “near occasion” unless one counts the temption he succumbed to by deciding to go to the bar in the first place. It changed rom “near occasion” to actual sin when he made the decision to go…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

and these stacked up sins are SINS - not “near sins”.

they are still near occasions for the next sin…and the first was only a near occasion

The the sin is the intent to go and get drunk - not a “near occasion” but a sin.

as noted…it was a near occasion until he actual did so…in my other example up above…i put myself in the near occasion where I know I will fall…bu tmy wife calls…etc read above…

Not at all - there was never a “near occasion” unless one counts the temption he succumbed to by deciding to go to the bar in the first place. It changed rom “near occasion” to actual sin when he made the decision to go…

I was trying to show that something can be a sin and a near occasion for another sin at the same time…the beginning near occasion was the starting point…where there was a sin for being there…but one had not yet got drunk or decided to…

Peace
James

Again as noted so many times above …it has been the understand in the Church that on can “sin” by simply being in a near occasion of sin…even if on does not do the thing it is a near occasion for…this is a “different sin”.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I posted a question in the AAA forum asking if Fr. Serpa would like to elaborate on his earlier post. We’ll see if anyone responses.

I can’t understand where the issue is - it’s plain English .
I just hope the OP isn’t at all scrupulous or he/she will be throughly confused by now.

 

[Bookcat]

Q: Is putting oneself in a near occasion of sin a sin in and of itself?
A: It can be.

Q: Is that sin the same sin as the one that one is trying to avoid?
A: No…it is a different sin

Q: Is remaining in a near occasion of sin a sin in and of itself?
A: It can be

Q: Should one presume one has sinned in some way cause one was in a near occ?
A: No …temptations can come…near occasions can come…and still no sin…

Q: Can there be good reasons to be in a near occasion of sin?
A: There can be

Q:Are we obliged to avoid near occasions of mortal sin?
A: Generally yes

Q: Can there be necessary near occasions of mortal sin where it is not a sin to be?
A: Yes there can be

Q: Can there be unavoidable near occasions of sin and still no sin?
A: Yes it is possible…(one should try to make it more remote)

(those with scruples should not scruple about this…but talk with ones confessor)

 

[JRKH]

I posted a question in the AAA forum asking if Fr. Serpa would like to elaborate on his earlier post. We’ll see if anyone responses.

I can’t understand where the issue is - it’s plain English .
I just hope the OP isn’t at all scrupulous or he/she will be throughly confused by now.

I’m glad there is at least one other person who gets this…

As you say it is indeed plain english.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
and these stacked up sins are SINS - not “near sins”.

Precisely the point - it was a near occasion to sin (but not an actual sin) until he committed the sin of getting drunk. It’s teh same with your earlier example. If the intent was to get drunk, then that is the sin and not a “near occasion”.

Not at all - there was never a “near occasion” unless one counts the temption he succumbed to by deciding to go to the bar in the first place. It changed rom “near occasion” to actual sin when he made the decision to go…

I was trying to show that something can be a sin and a near occasion for another sin at the same time…the beginning near occasion was the starting point…where there was a sin for being there…but one had not yet got drunk or decided to…

Yes it can which I also illustrated with my example of an armed robbery (sin) also being a near occasion of the sin of murder (not yet a sin committed).
But in each case the is the act of sinning and not the “near occasion itself”

Again as noted so many times above …it has been the understand in the Church that on can “sin” by simply being in a near occasion of sin…even if on does not do the thing it is a near occasion for…this is a “different sin”.

Yes again. One can sin by being in the situation that makes the sin likely, thev"near occasion of sin". However being in the situation is not the sin in itself.

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

I’m glad there is at least one other person who gets this…

As you say it is indeed plain english.

Peace
James

Yes it is plain English that being in a near occasion of sin can be be a sin in it’s-self.

This is simply how it has been understood in the Catholic Church.

(even the Priest you quoted said it can be…if one for example puts oneself into it with hopes that it one can sin…that was an example of one way…short emails are not exhaustive answers… )

 

[Bookcat]

Precisely the point - it was a near occasion to sin (but not an actual sin) until he committed the sin of getting drunk. It’s teh same with your earlier example. If the intent was to get drunk, then that is the sin and not a “near occasion”.

It is a near occasion of committing the mortal sin of getting drunk

and

it is already for this guy a “sin of putting himself in a voluntary near occasion of mortal sin” without good reason

Yes again. One can sin by being in the situation that makes the sin likely, thev"near occasion of sin". However being in the situation is not the sin in itself.

Yes…one “can sin” by being in a near occasion of sin voluntarily …but the near occasion of sin the sin of drunkness is not already the sin of drunkenness…it is well the near occasion of the sin of drunkenness

For that person…being in the near occasion of sin is already a sin…just not the sin (yet) it is the near occasion for…

You see the problem comes in with the fact that "being in a near occasion of sin is not automatically any sin…it can be…it also can “not be”…and also the confusion between “a sin of being in a near occasion of sin” (if it is a sin…remember it is need not be any sin at all…) and the “sin the near occasion is the near occasion for”

 

[Bookcat]

It can be “a sin” to go into a voluntary near occasion of sin …of say drunkeness

but that “sin” is not yet the sin “of drunkness” it is a different sin.

but it must be noted very clearly that being in a near occasion of sin …is not yet the “sin it is the near occasion of” and need not be “any sin” …for three can be even very justifying reasons to be there…and of course often one ends up there and then realizes it and leaves…

 

[Bookcat]

Being in the near occasion sin of Hamster murder is not hamster murder.
But it CAN possibly be a sin of putting oneself without justifying reasons into
the near occasion of hamster murder…even though one does not commit the
actual sin of hamster murder. One can still sin by putting oneself in such grave danger of offing the hamster in question…

It may also be the case that I have justifying reasons to be in such a near occasion …of hamster murder …or it can just happen to me and I deal with it…etc…or it is unavoidable etc and thus no sin at all of any kind…



(I had hamsters growing up…and even one in adulthood…no offense to said rodent)

 

[pcg2]

Thanks for your guy’s responses

The reason I asked this question is because I struggle with masturbation and pornography – I have been trying to end these vices for more than a year and a half. And to make things even worse, I suffer from scrupulosity (I’m not resentful, just gotta bear my cross ).

Anyways, last summer (when I was still struggling with pornography/masturbation and scrupulosity) I made the decision to go to the beach many times. Obviously, the beach can be a near occasion of sin for someone who struggles with the sin of lust. But the thing is, that there was not a single time when I went to the beach last summer where I ever lusted, even once (when I was in a state of grace). Last summer, I always saw these instances when I would go to the beach as instances where I would be tested with my scrupulosity. It was actually a positive thing for me – going to the beach was a place where I could forcefully encounter my scruples and make progress towards conquering them. And it obviously worked – not once did I lust.

But now I’m confused as to whether this is putting myself in a near occasion of sin. I’m certainly not going to the beach with the intention of lusting after any girl – just to have fun with my friends. Now obviously this could be a near occasion of sin for me, but judging from all of last summer (when I didn’t lust once) I don’t think going to the beach poses much of a problem… so all this talk just got me more confused haha

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for your guy’s responses

The reason I asked this question is because I struggle with masturbation and pornography – I have been trying to end these vices for more than a year and a half. And to make things even worse, I suffer from scrupulosity (I’m not resentful, just gotta bear my cross ).

Anyways, last summer (when I was still struggling with pornography/masturbation and scrupulosity) I made the decision to go to the beach many times. Obviously, the beach can be a near occasion of sin for someone who struggles with the sin of lust. But the thing is, that there was not a single time when I went to the beach last summer where I ever lusted, even once (when I was in a state of grace). Last summer, I always saw these instances when I would go to the beach as instances where I would be tested with my scrupulosity. It was actually a positive thing for me – going to the beach was a place where I could forcefully encounter my scruples and make progress towards conquering them. And it obviously worked – not once did I lust.

But now I’m confused as to whether this is putting myself in a near occasion of sin. I’m certainly not going to the beach with the intention of lusting after any girl – just to have fun with my friends. Now obviously this could be a near occasion of sin for me, but judging from all of last summer (when I didn’t lust once) I don’t think going to the beach poses much of a problem… so all this talk just got me more confused haha

One with a difficulty with scruples should not scruple about near occasions…and can always ask their confessor…

So as to your question:

A near occasion to mortal sin is something (place etc) where one generally commits mortal sin or always… or of its very nature would generally lead most into mortal sin…

from what you describe … (assuming it is a ordinary beach…like in the USA.) sounds like going to the beach would NOT be a near occasion of sin for you (as you state …you did not even once lust etc). So do not scruple about it. It will of course remain an “occasion of sin” of the more remote variety…but it is not a near occasion for you.

So do not scruple about this but make use of “reasonable” custody of the eyes…

(of course your confessor “knows” you and can best advise you…)

Scruples must be treated like a barking dog…one does not argue with a barking dog does one?? No …one keeps walking…(sometimes on the sand…)

feel free to PM if I can assist further with this or scruples…

 

[Bookcat]

Some examples of going to the beach (assuming this is an ordinary beach in the US) that would be a near occasion of mortal sin would be:

If everytime one went to the beach one committed a mortal sin of lust.
If usually or generally when one went to the beach one committed a mortal sin of lust.

an example of something that is not a “near occasion of mortal sin” would be:

Among the many times one went to the beach…one fell into a mortal sin of lust
once…but such does not usually happen…

 

[ready]

Is putting oneself in a near occasion of sin a sin in and of itself?

Yes. It can even be a mortal sin depending on how much danger the occasion of sin puts you in.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’ve known priests to say categorically from the pulpit that no one should be going to public beaches while others are swimming. This is pretty obvious because it is a regular occurrence that persons wear clothes that a gravely immodest there. This is necessarily a near occasion of sin in se, just as someone going around topless is a grave occasion of sin in se, even if a culture has accepted it as fine (e.g., the savages in Africa).

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve known priests to say categorically from the pulpit that no one should be going to public beaches while others are swimming. This is pretty obvious because it is a regular occurrence that persons wear clothes that a gravely immodest there. This is necessarily a near occasion of sin in se, just as someone going around topless is a grave occasion of sin in se, even if a culture has accepted it as fine (e.g., the savages in Africa).

I would not go that far…

Yes such “could” be a near occasion for “some”…but I do not say that others therefore should avoid the beaches (normal US beaches)

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for your guy’s responses

The reason I asked this question is because I struggle with masturbation and pornography – I have been trying to end these vices for more than a year and a half. And to make things even worse, I suffer from scrupulosity (I’m not resentful, just gotta bear my cross ).

Anyways, last summer (when I was still struggling with pornography/masturbation and scrupulosity) I made the decision to go to the beach many times. Obviously, the beach can be a near occasion of sin for someone who struggles with the sin of lust. But the thing is, that there was not a single time when I went to the beach last summer where I ever lusted, even once (when I was in a state of grace). Last summer, I always saw these instances when I would go to the beach as instances where I would be tested with my scrupulosity. It was actually a positive thing for me – going to the beach was a place where I could forcefully encounter my scruples and make progress towards conquering them. And it obviously worked – not once did I lust.

But now I’m confused as to whether this is putting myself in a near occasion of sin. I’m certainly not going to the beach with the intention of lusting after any girl – just to have fun with my friends. Now obviously this could be a near occasion of sin for me, but judging from all of last summer (when I didn’t lust once) I don’t think going to the beach poses much of a problem… so all this talk just got me more confused haha

I am sorry for confusing you more. I should have stopped arguing with Bookcat long ago but I sometimes just can’t quit… that is my cross…

If you have demonstrated that going to the beach does not necessarily cause you to lust then there is no serious cause for concern.
Going to the beach certainly can be a “near occasion” but just as certainly is not a sin - in itself.
You put it perfectly when you said that you aren’t going there to lust, but rather just to hang out with friends and have fun.
Even should a random lustful thought occur you may not necessarily have sinned (seriously) unless you allow yourself to dwell on it. you can discuss this with your confessor.

You also showed where facing your issues by going to the beach has been a positive.
Good for you!! :clapping:

Overall I agree with Bookcat that this is something you need to be in contact with your spiritual advisor/confessor about. They can give the best ongoing advise. As you may have noticed here, we can get too hung up on semantics and other trivialities.

Thanks for coming back and clarifying the issues. I think it helps us as well.

Peace
James

 

[chain]

I think often what people describe as “near occasions” are actually sins, just not necessarily sins of action.

Sleeping with someone who you are attracted to could easily be because you enjoy that illicit excitement even if you are not engaged in intercourse. You are trying to get as much enjoyment as possible without crossing the “line” - yet the Gospel says you have already committed adultery in your mind.

On the other hand, perhaps the near occasion is something such as taking a bath (rather than a short shower), because that is a personal trigger, that leads you to sinful action. I don’t know on this one - is the bath sinful since you are fully aware it is more likely than not to lead to sin.​

Personally, I learned to shower until the habit was broken (Not sure if it is cured (about 1 year now), still do not bath often - and certainly not when I would be tempted).​

I am sure more than a few recovering alcoholics have changed their daily commute to avoid passing places that have tempted them in the past.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is not intrinsically evil to put one’s self in a near occasion for sin. So if the intention is good, then it depends on the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences. It is not always immoral to put one’s self in a near occasion for sin, but neither is it always moral.

 

[ready]

I see your point. For example, if one has to go to a brothel to drag one’s sister out of the place, then there would be no sin in putting oneself in that occassion of sin.