Split: If you are addicted, is it a sin?

[CopticChristian]

I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or contradicting me.

Corki,

You are right on.

 

[CopticChristian]

What I find very interesting is that you could be debating on the Alcoholism Support group I belong to who refuse to admit powerlessness because it would then involve a power greater than themselves to relieve them of their alcoholism.

If you’re not an alcoholic, you have no idea what an alcoholic goes through. Only God was able to lift the obsession to drink. There was NO way I could do it on willpower alone. Took surrender for me.

Christmas,

Whatever it takes to stop.

H2O is water
CHOH is alcohol

I don’t believe anyone is powerless over water or alcohol or any other Carbohydrate.

I have a hard time having carbohydrates around, potato chips, tostitos etc…am I powerless? I don’t buy them and if I do I put them where I cannot see them. I choose not to buy them and I put them where the thought of eating them is not brought to mind because I like the taste.

Read any 12 step book. Why do alcoholics drink? Because they like the effects.

Read the companion to the 12 Steps, I believe it is the 12 and 12 or whatever it is called…

What is a Character defect?.. find that and you have the answer…

when you look in the 12 and 12

Character defect = are you read for this…hold on now…drum roll…

**If you are addicted, is it a sin?..**asks the OP…well the 12 and 12 the companion to the big book says that

A character defect is??? SIN…

Now wait a minute, it’s a disease, I have a spiritual disease, I need treatment for my SIN? Bill Wilson say What???

Yes the 12 steps/AA were born of Protestant Christian thought, the Oxford Groupers and the 9th and 7th Circuit Courts, Federal Courts have ruled that AA is a religion. Huh…a silence…yup that is right and if you or anyone else gets caught by the law you will be sentenced for your intoxication/law breaking to jail or rehab…and if you don’t know this then you will go to AA/12 steps…if you say…I believe AA/12 steps is a religion and offering me 12 steps/AA violates the establishment clause and I prefer to go to SMART…the judge will say OK…since you asked…

Now it is a sin that more people do not know that.

Concerning what alcoholics go through. I have seen alcoholics from skid row brought to the hospital for treatment. I have seen alcoholics with pancreatitis writhing in pain. I have seen alcoholics with cirrhosis bleed to death because they cannot stop drinking. I watched drunks go to AA meetings drunk believing there was something magic about the meeting. I attended too many of these groups to learn what I learned. Someone near and dear put me through living hell because they chose to drink. I think I have a good idea what they go through.

 

[CopticChristian]

My submission would be yes…you can stop…difficult yes…not denying that. But it is a sin none the less…although their addiction and perpencity to addiction would make them less culpable which would put it in the venial vs. mortal as they are not truly free. I just think people go too far by saying it is not a sin at all! It is a cross to bear…as we all have.

Annabelle,

You are in agreement with AA/12 steps…page 3/7 of the twelve and twelve…

aa.org/twelveandtwelve/en_pdfs/en_step6.pdf

“When they drive us blindly, or we willfully demand that they supply us with more satisfactions or pleasures than are possible or due us, that is the point at which we depart from the degree of perfection that God wishes for us here on earth. That is the measure of our character defects, or, if you wish, of our sins.”

When I read this my jaw dropped and it all fell into place.

and the scenario goes something like this…

So you have this disease you see…my oh my…what kind…well it is spiritual…and what do I do to fix it…well you could turn to Christ and ask for help or you could go to this other religion down the street and say you are powerless…you have character defects and that is where the other religion works differently than say Christ who asks you to acknowledge your sin…wow sounds like the powerless thing is OK…why would I want to turn to Christ and admit I am a sinner…

Hey doc…ya know that guy you sent to that other religion with character defects…aren’t those character defects sin. Yeah but he will be in that system for years before he figures that out…its a way to trick people into getting into religion…

And here is the rub…too many of those meetings have “I am a recovering alcoholic” and “a recovering Catholic”…too many that I have seen that have lost their Faith and too many taken into Protestant thinking…

That too is a sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,
Your references are about research involving treatment modalities for addiction, not the question of the disease concept itself. For that I suggest you check out Kevin McCauley, M.D. at addictiondoctor.com. Watch his video and you will learn the truth about addiciton.
By your logic, kids with Tourette’s Syndrome don’t have an illness, just a bad habit. They simply should be punished for yelling out the F word in church, right? Of course not. If you look at the science you will see that they suffer from an illness, just as addicts do.Your mistake is juding from behavior, not neurochemistry and spirituality.
BTW, if you think nicotine is the most addictive substance in the world then you have never met a heroin addict…or taken my pharmacology class.

Frl,

I know the science and it is bunk. There are no studies that prove that AA/12 steps have a better rate of recovery that about 10% which is about the rate of spontaneous recovery. It is a sin that no one know that.

All of these courts have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion or engages in religious activities:

• the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984.
• the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994.
• the New York Court of Appeals, 1996.
• the New York State Supreme Court, 1996.
• the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997.
• the Tennessee State Supreme Court.
• the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996.
• the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
• the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996.
• the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996.
• the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 7, 2007.

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to those rulings, or to change or over-turn those lower court decisions. By letting them stand, the Supreme Court has made them the law of the land.
But there is one very important exception to that statement — one case has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — the Griffin v. Coughlin decision, from the New York State Court of Appeals, 1996, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal, it sided with the atheist convict who said the New York Department of Corrections’ attempt to link extra privileges for inmates with attendance at meetings modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

On November 14, 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn, thus allowed to stand, a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordering that forced attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings end immediately, because it was a violation of Freedom of Religion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the high courts of the states of Tennessee and New York have also made the same ruling.
Legally, Alcoholics Anonymous is established as a religious organization. And so is Narcotics Anonymous. Lawyers and judges now consider the issue “a moot point”, one that is so thoroughly established that they will not argue the point again. They just accept it as a given.

Then, for a recent legal kicker, on July 31, 2001, United States District Court Judge Charles Brieant overturned the manslaughter conviction of Paul Cox because Cox had “shared” his memories of two murders with other Alcoholics Anonymous members at an A.A. meeting, and then one of those members turned him in. And at the trial, other A.A. members were subpoenaed and forced to testify against Cox.

The District Court Judge ruled that Cox’s confession at the A.A. meeting was protected and inadmissible evidence, just like Catholics’ confessions to their priests are protected and inadmissible in court. Judge Brieant cited a 1999 federal appeals court declaration that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion. And then the judge threw out the conviction because it was based on inadmissible evidence.

As far as the courts of the USA are concerned, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are, beyond a doubt, organizations that engage in religious activities. And their meetings qualify as religious services. It’s a done deal. Nobody denies it but Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and the other 12-Step groups.

The Supreme Court has ruled that AA is a religion and all Circuit court rulings in that regard stand.

It is a sin that no one know that.

 

[thistle]

"Actually both my Priest and Mother Angelica would disagree with you. In order for something to be a sin, according to my priest and confessor, you have to have free will in the matter. By the very nature of true addiction you do not have free will. "

This is a split from another thread. The person quoted up above says that if you do not have free will in the matter…then not a sin…not even a venial sin as I tried to clarify that with them.

Also, it appears that the theory is that it has to be a physical addiction…not a mental one…like porn is a mental addiction but smoking or heroin use is a physical addiction and not a sin as the person does not have free will.

What does everyone say?

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ADDICTION. The state of being physically dependent on something, generally alcohol or drugs, but it can be any material object or experience. Addiction means increased tolerance, but also greater difficulty in withdrawal. In fact, the fear of withdrawal symptoms is the main obstacle even in persons who are convinced on moral grounds that they should overcome an addiction. The study of addiction has contributed to a major development in Catholic moral theology, through a better understanding of subjective guilt and a more effective pastoral care of persons with bad moral habits. (Etym. Latin addicere, to give one’s consent to a thing.)

 

[CopticChristian]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ADDICTION. The state of being physically dependent on something, generally alcohol or drugs, but it can be any material object or experience. Addiction means increased tolerance, but also greater difficulty in withdrawal. In fact, the fear of withdrawal symptoms is the main obstacle even in persons who are convinced on moral grounds that they should overcome an addiction. The study of addiction has contributed to a major development in Catholic moral theology, through a better understanding of subjective guilt and a more effective pastoral care of persons with bad moral habits. (Etym. Latin addicere, to give one’s consent to a thing.)

Thistle,

This is good. Addicere is actually latin for slave. There was a time when slavery was for debt and that debtor was a slave until the debt was paid. Once an addicere not always an addicere. So once an addict not always an addict. The notion of once an alcoholic/addict always an alcoholic/addict comes from Protestant thinking…ie Nathaniel Hawthorne…The Scarlet Letter where you wear and pronounce your sin…

thefreedictionary.com/addict

addict - To addict originally meant “to award as a slave”; an addict now is a slave to his/her habit, from Latin addictus, which, in Roman law, meant “a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor.”

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Manumissio.html

The master in the meantime held the slave, and after he had pronounced the words “hunc hominem liberum volo,” he turned him round (momento turbinis exit Marcus Dama, Persius, Sat. V.78)a and let him go (emisit e manu, or misit manu, Plaut. Capt. II.3.48), whence the general name of the act of manumission. The magistratus then declared him to be free, in reference to which Cicero (ad Att. VII.2) seems to use the word “addicere.”

catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0375.http

If we follow this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion, then it would be logical to call all bad or destructive behavior, “addictive,” so that “addicts” of whatever kind are helpless victims of forces beyond their control. A woman gambles because she cannot help it. A man drinks because he cannot help it. A woman shops because she cannot help it. A man throws himself into internet pornography because he cannot help it. Addicts, helpless victims, one and all.

The obvious problem with this view is that it entirely destroys morality by denying the possibility of good, freely-chosen action. We should call them what they really are: sinful habits. Or we could use the more exact and compact word, vices. A sign of the correctness of this word is that “vice” contains the notion of addiction – a kind of helpless slavery – even while it affirms the presence of free will and moral culpability

Character defects=Bad moral habits=Sin

 

[clem456]

Thistle,

This is good. Addicere is actually latin for slave. There was a time when slavery was for debt and that debtor was a slave until the debt was paid. Once an addicere not always an addicere. **So once an addict not always an addict. The notion of once an alcoholic/addict always an alcoholic/addict comes from Protestant thinking…ie Nathaniel Hawthorne…**The Scarlet Letter where you wear and pronounce your sin…

Addict: 1530s (implied in addicted), from L. addictus, pp. of addicere “to deliver, award, yield; give assent, make over, sell,” figuratively “to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray” from ad- “to” (see ad-) + dicere “say, declare” (see diction), but also “adjudge, allot.” Earlier in English as an adjective, “delivered, devoted” (1520s). Related: Addicted; addicting.

As an addict, I am going to disagree with you from personal experience and the experience of of everyone else I know who is an addict. Once an addict, always an addict. Just to clear up some confusion here…because a person is an addict does not mean we are currently acting out. If we have surrendered our lives and addiction to God, we can stay sober. But an addict must admit we are powerless over the addiction, and that’s for life. An addict forgets his addiction at his own peril. We must accept Christ’s yoke and give up our own will. An alcoholic can not take even one drink. He has surrendered the impulse to drink to his 12 step, his accountability partners, his support group. Same thing with a porn addict, we can not indulge feelings of lust because the addiction is always lurking. And when the demons are let back in, scripture tells us, they come back with a vengeance. And this is the truth. It is a lifetime thing.

Character defects=Bad moral habits=Sin

This is true. We all deal with character and spiritual defects. But the concept of personal responsibility does not nullify the concept of addiction. The habitual choice to participate in sin frequently leads to addiction.
Since I have surrendered my addiction to God’s providence and will, it is now part of the blessings that I have been given by God. The addiction brought me to the truth that I need God every minute to survive spiritually.

 

[CopticChristian]

Addict: 1530s (implied in addicted), from L. addictus, pp. of addicere “to deliver, award, yield; give assent, make over, sell,” figuratively “to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray” from ad- “to” (see ad-) + dicere “say, declare” (see diction), but also “adjudge, allot.” Earlier in English as an adjective, “delivered, devoted” (1520s). Related: Addicted; addicting.

As an addict, I am going to disagree with you from personal experience and the experience of of everyone else I know who is an addict. Once an addict, always an addict. Just to clear up some confusion here…because a person is an addict does not mean we are currently acting out. If we have surrendered our lives and addiction to God, we can stay sober. But an addict must admit we are powerless over the addiction, and that’s for life. An addict forgets his addiction at his own peril. We must accept Christ’s yoke and give up our own will. An alcoholic can not take even one drink. He has surrendered the impulse to drink to his 12 step, his accountability partners, his support group. Same thing with a porn addict, we can not indulge feelings of lust because the addiction is always lurking. And when the demons are let back in, scripture tells us, they come back with a vengeance. And this is the truth. It is a lifetime thing.

This is true. We all deal with character and spiritual defects. But the concept of personal responsibility does not nullify the concept of addiction. The habitual choice to participate in sin frequently leads to addiction.
Since I have surrendered my addiction to God’s providence and will, it is now part of the blessings that I have been given by God. The addiction brought me to the truth that I need God every minute to survive spiritually.

Clem,

I am grateful you are not practicing bad habits, you are motivated, have values, connection with yourself, your family and your community.

You are espousing the party line for 12 steps/AA. It worked for you.

 

[Corki]

Corki,

You are correct that there is no one way. The problem is that if you accept the disease model then if it is a disease it removes culpability as the end result. This man made paradigm as all man made paradigms backfires because the individual can absolve themselves from the sin and say “I can’t help this I have a disease”

Never been a disease, never was a disease, never will be a disease.

The other problem with the disease model is that it’s used to generalize all kinds of personal failings. Nowadays we talk about carb addiction, sugar addiction, pleasure addiction, media addiction, and it goes on and on. I seem to be addicted to CAF and to chocolate but that’s just me.

That’s not to say that there are not biological and psychological elements to many addictions. I studied genetics as an undergrad and one of my professors did a lot of work in the field of identifying genetic pre-dispositions to various things. The genetic predisposition to alcoholism is remarkably close to the genetic disposition to lactose intolerance. But genetic disposition is not the same as pre-destination. Many people with a genetic disposition to alcohol will live thier whole lives as responsible drinkers. Also many people will become alcholics even without the genetic predisposition. But noone becomes a problem drinker without some personally culpable action.

 

[CopticChristian]

The other problem with the disease model is that it’s used to generalize all kinds of personal failings. Nowadays we talk about carb addiction, sugar addiction, pleasure addiction, media addiction, and it goes on and on. I seem to be addicted to CAF and to chocolate but that’s just me.

That’s not to say that there are not biological and psychological elements to many addictions. I studied genetics as an undergrad and one of my professors did a lot of work in the field of identifying genetic pre-dispositions to various things. The genetic predisposition to alcoholism is remarkably close to the genetic disposition to lactose intolerance. But genetic disposition is not the same as pre-destination. Many people with a genetic disposition to alcohol will live thier whole lives as responsible drinkers. Also many people will become alcholics even without the genetic predisposition. But noone becomes a problem drinker without some personally culpable action.

Corki,

One of the things that people tend to neglect is that addictions are not bad in and of themselves. I learned from a Clinical Psychologist that you can be

addicted to truth
addicted to passion
addicted to Christ
addicted to Charity

People tend to look at the cup 1/2 empty and not full…So the question then becomes if addiction in and of itself is not a bad thing and it is what you are addicted to is bad then there must be negative and postive addictions. So in my journey of research and discovery of this issue guess what? I have no new ideas.

There is one and only one book published on “Positive Addictions” and that was written by William Glasser, MD. He is the same guy who decries the DSM as bunk, wrote “Reality Therapy” and “Choice Theory”…

So in answer to the OP, if you are addicted, is it a sin? It depends on what you are addicted to and how that addiction impacts your life, your family, your work, your community and so on…

Ain’t it wonderful

 

[johnnyjones]

Annabelle,

The answer to this is how you view addiction. Tragically much of the public has been brainwashed to believe that it is a disease and it is not.

Well then if it is not a disease.

Stanton Peele, PhD…the truth about addiction.

When you realize that this is nothing more than habit then it is and can be sin.

Smoking is not a habit. When nicotine enters your blood over long periods of time, the body develops a dependency on it. This could be said of other substances as well. Would you say someone given Xanax for a year should just be able to stop with no consequences? The body has become altered and needs to repair itself. This varies from person to person. Your right that in the sense that the word ‘disease’ is thrown around to loosely. Not everyone is the same though. One person could have been an alcoholic, then got sober and was able to return to drinking moderately. This is rare though because it will trigger the addictive mind and most will go back to drinking.

There are real physical and mental addictions. It is not an excuse to sin but these addictions cause sin. If you don’t conquer your addictions, you sin.

 

[johnnyjones]

The other problem with the disease model is that it’s used to generalize all kinds of personal failings. Nowadays we talk about carb addiction, sugar addiction, pleasure addiction, media addiction, and it goes on and on. I seem to be addicted to CAF and to chocolate but that’s just me.

That’s not to say that there are not biological and psychological elements to many addictions. I studied genetics as an undergrad and one of my professors did a lot of work in the field of identifying genetic pre-dispositions to various things. The genetic predisposition to alcoholism is remarkably close to the genetic disposition to lactose intolerance. But genetic disposition is not the same as pre-destination. Many people with a genetic disposition to alcohol will live thier whole lives as responsible drinkers. Also many people will become alcholics even without the genetic predisposition. But noone becomes a problem drinker without some personally culpable action.

As a recovered alcoholic I never liked the disease concept because I always thought, “hey I’m giving it to myself (the drink)”. It’s all hooked into the words “chronic” & “progressive”. Those are terms for a disease. Sometimes it does seem to fit alcoholism or drug dependency.

I do have a problem with the control aspect. If you don’t drink, you don’t get drunk. I know that when I drank 15 years ago, after the first one I felt like a had to have another. But, could I have willed myself not to have another? Of course, but I didn’t want to because the mind was saying this feels so right for you. Addiction is as you say a loosely used word.

To put it simply, if you give into whatever damaging substance it is, or evil state of mind, you’ve sinned. It’s just not packaged that way to the general public as much anymore. I just don’t believe in minimizing physical and mental strongholds, they have to be looked at on a case by case basis.

 

[TimothyH]

Smoking is not a habit. When nicotine enters your blood over long periods of time, the body develops a dependency on it. This could be said of other substances as well. Would you say someone given Xanax for a year should just be able to stop with no consequences? The body has become altered and needs to repair itself. This varies from person to person. Your right that in the sense that the word ‘disease’ is thrown around to loosely. Not everyone is the same though. One person could have been an alcoholic, then got sober and was able to return to drinking moderately. This is rare though because it will trigger the addictive mind and most will go back to drinking.

There are real physical and mental addictions. It is not an excuse to sin but these addictions cause sin. If you don’t conquer your addictions, you sin.

Sin is objective. Sin is always sin. That doesn’t change. But addiction lessens culpability, or the ammount of blame we deserve for committing the sin.

A 35 year old married Catholic woman from an upper middle class neighborhood who has been in the Church her whole life decides that three kids is enough and gets an abortion. She sins.

A sixteen year old girl who has never been to church gets pressured into an abortion by her eighteen year old boyfriend who tells her that her life will be over if she has the baby. She sins.

Sin is objective. Both sin, but the sixteen year old girl is less culpable for the sin. The 35 year old Catholic woman who drives her Lexus to the abortion clinic and “Gets it over with” bears more blame than the sixteen year old girl who doesn’t understand the teaching of the Church, agonizes over the abortion and gets pressured into it.

You are right about addiction. Anyone who is addicted will tell you that they can’t stop. They may want to stop and may try to stop but they can’t on their own. An addict cannot control himself. And sin is always objective. Sin is sin, no matter what the cause. That never changes. That’s what the question in the OP was about. Yes, it is sin even if the person is addicted.

But addiction lessens culpability. A good confessor will draw this out from the penitent by asking the right questions, and give appropriate council and pennance. We cannot presume to know the cupability one has to an particular sin we are aware of in their lives - that’s for God and their confessor to know.

It’s not always about objective sin, but about culpability, how much blame we bear. A good confessor will take draw this out and handle it, not us.

-Tim-

 

[johnnyjones]

Clem,

I am grateful you are not practicing bad habits, you are motivated, have values, connection with yourself, your family and your community.

You are espousing the party line for 12 steps/AA. It worked for you.

If a person feels that they must be mindful of their previous addictive behavior and know that they will return to it if they dabble, are they espousing AAs philosophy? I think Clem spoke reasonably. AA is a mixed bag, it has many positive elements but can make you think that if you don’t practice things their way your doomed to failure. I took what worked and left the rest…for good.

 

[CopticChristian]

Smoking is not a habit. When nicotine enters your blood over long periods of time, the body develops a dependency on it. This could be said of other substances as well. Would you say someone given Xanax for a year should just be able to stop with no consequences? The body has become altered and needs to repair itself. This varies from person to person. Your right that in the sense that the word ‘disease’ is thrown around to loosely. Not everyone is the same though. One person could have been an alcoholic, then got sober and was able to return to drinking moderately. This is rare though because it will trigger the addictive mind and most will go back to drinking.

There are real physical and mental addictions. It is not an excuse to sin but these addictions cause sin. If you don’t conquer your addictions, you sin.

Johnny,

How do you define habit?

This reminds me of a story my father told me. My father, deceased, was a pharmacist.

He was speaking to a man that was taking sleeping pills everyday. My father told him that taking sleeping pills every day is addictive. The man said…“how they be addictive, I take them everyday”…

 

[CopticChristian]

As a recovered alcoholic I never liked the disease concept because I always thought, “hey I’m giving it to myself (the drink)”. It’s all hooked into the words “chronic” & “progressive”. Those are terms for a disease. Sometimes it does seem to fit alcoholism or drug dependency.

I do have a problem with the control aspect. If you don’t drink, you don’t get drunk. I know that when I drank 15 years ago, after the first one I felt like a had to have another. But, could I have willed myself not to have another? Of course, but I didn’t want to because the mind was saying this feels so right for you. Addiction is as you say a loosely used word.

To put it simply, if you give into whatever damaging substance it is, or evil state of mind, you’ve sinned. It’s just not packaged that way to the general public as much anymore. I just don’t believe in minimizing physical and mental strongholds, they have to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Johnny,

Measles, TB, Cancer and real diseases are not sometimes and depending. The notion of Chronic and Progressive is nothing more than the brainwashing of the disease paradigm that you and others accept. Believe it if you like. If it keeps you from drinking, Ok.

So, you can believe you have a disease, it is Chronic and progressive and it is always there…Ok
or

You can believe that you drank too much, it was a bad habit, it caused problems and it led you to sin. Now you don’t and that was then and this is now.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sin is objective. Sin is always sin. That doesn’t change. But addiction lessens culpability, or the ammount of blame we deserve for committing the sin.

A 35 year old married Catholic woman from an upper middle class neighborhood who has been in the Church her whole life decides that three kids is enough and gets an abortion. She sins.

A sixteen year old girl who has never been to church gets pressured into an abortion by her eighteen year old boyfriend who tells her that her life will be over if she has the baby. She sins.

Sin is objective. Both sin, but the sixteen year old girl is less culpable for the sin. The 35 year old Catholic woman who drives her Lexus to the abortion clinic and “Gets it over with” bears more blame than the sixteen year old girl who doesn’t understand the teaching of the Church, agonizes over the abortion and gets pressured into it.

You are right about addiction. Anyone who is addicted will tell you that they can’t stop. **They may want to stop and may try to stop but they can’t on their own. **An addict cannot control himself. And sin is always objective. Sin is sin, no matter what the cause. That never changes. That’s what the question in the OP was about. Yes, it is sin even if the person is addicted.

But addiction lessens culpability. A good confessor will draw this out from the penitent by asking the right questions, and give appropriate council and pennance. We cannot presume to know the cupability one has to an particular sin we are aware of in their lives - that’s for God and their confessor to know.

It’s not always about objective sin, but about culpability, how much blame we bear. A good confessor will take draw this out and handle it, not us.

-Tim-

Tim,

Part and parcel of the disease model is that people cannot stop on their own. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet and people stop smoking all the time. The same is true for heroin, cocain, alcohol and any other substance. The media has massaged the brain of some to believe that you can’t do it on your own and that is malarky. That is a sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

If a person feels that they must be mindful of their previous addictive behavior and know that they will return to it if they dabble, are they espousing AAs philosophy? I think Clem spoke reasonably. AA is a mixed bag, it has many positive elements but can make you think that if you don’t practice things their way your doomed to failure. I took what worked and left the rest…for good.

Johnny,

You can think and believe anything you like. If believing the AA paradigm that requires you to wear the Scarlet Letter, to believe that you are your behavior, that you are what you are and will never be anything else…if that keeps you from drink and you are without drink…it works for you…Ok…

however

There are people that don’t believe that and don’t drink…whatever works.

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

How do you define habit?

This reminds me of a story my father told me. My father, deceased, was a pharmacist.

He was speaking to a man that was taking sleeping pills everyday. My father told him that taking sleeping pills every day is addictive. The man said…“how they be addictive, I take them everyday”…

Like most people do. I mean you can use a dictionary to show that a habit is an aquired pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary whereas an addiction is the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice to such an extent that it’s cessation causes severe trauma. Addiction is higher up the flag pole although in modern usage it certainly has been watered down.

 

[CopticChristian]

Like most people do. I mean you can use a dictionary to show that a habit is an aquired pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary whereas an addiction is the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice to such an extent that it’s cessation causes severe trauma. Addiction is higher up the flag pole although in modern usage it certainly has been watered down.

Johnny,

Dictionaries have words defined by usage. What is a habit? Something you do routinely, pretty clear. What is an addiction? A habit that you do routinely with the proviso that it interferes with your life to cause you to have negative consequences.

So drinking may be a habit. Drinking everday after work may be a habit. Drinking everyday and not coming home, losing your car keys, getting arrested causes that habit to become a problem, etc…Ok…