Temptation

[HpyCatholic]

An interesting argument was brought up in a thread about homosexuality where someone was proposing that if homosexuality is indeed a choice that all temptation that arises from it is automatically a sin because they put themselves in that position of their own free will.

This got me thinking I always thought that temptation in and of itself wasn’t a sin its what you do with that temptation that can lead to sin. If this is true where is this explicity mentioned in the bible or in church teachings?

Based on the responses I’ll probably have more questions, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit the last few days.

 

[promethius]

temptation is NOT a sin, you are correct. only acting on that temptation is a sin. in this case, carrying out homosexual acts in fornication would be a sin, but the temptation could also lead to innapropriate lust, which is in a way action on the temptation although not physical.

 

[promethius]

i might add, it is satan who tempts us, not just ourselves. the saints were often tempted, Jesus was “tempted” by satan. It is not practical to presume that these sinned simply because satan chose to target them, so it is not practical to apply this logic to people today either

 

[otm]

HpyCatholic:

An interesting argument was brought up in a thread about homosexuality where someone was proposing that if homosexuality is indeed a choice that all temptation that arises from it is automatically a sin because they put themselves in that position of their own free will.

This got me thinking I always thought that temptation in and of itself wasn’t a sin its what you do with that temptation that can lead to sin. If this is true where is this explicity mentioned in the bible or in church teachings?

Based on the responses I’ll probably have more questions, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit the last few days.

The person proposing that homosexuality is a choice is a bit on the simplistic end of things. They are probably trying to separate that from the arguement that people are born with that inclination, that is, that it is genetically caused.

It appears that homosexuality is caused, at least to a degree, by the failure very early in life to properly bond with one or both parents. Evidence seems to support this. and we are talking about bonding before reaching the age of reason, so moral theology would posit no guilt, as one could not reason enough to commit a sin.

Separate from that may be the homosexual experiences in high school age children (predominately boys) who “turn tricks” while in a runaway status, in order to survive on the street. Given that sexual identity is in the formative stages during those years, it may be that the experience results in the “homosexualization”, if you will, of the child, or at least a bi-sexual orientation, due to the devastating experiences of the sexual act by predatory males at such a formative stage, and in such a moral and emotional vacuum.

The poster’s knowledge of moral theology, as well as some basic issues of sexual orientation and identity, is greatly lacking.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Thanks for the responses. Is there anything in the Catechism or other church teachings that explicity talk about temptation in and of itself not being a sin?

 

[Other_Eric]

otm:

The person proposing that homosexuality is a choice is a bit on the simplistic end of things. They are probably trying to separate that from the arguement that people are born with that inclination, that is, that it is genetically caused.

It appears that homosexuality is caused, at least to a degree, by the failure very early in life to properly bond with one or both parents. Evidence seems to support this. and we are talking about bonding before reaching the age of reason, so moral theology would posit no guilt, as one could not reason enough to commit a sin.

Separate from that may be the homosexual experiences in high school age children (predominately boys) who “turn tricks” while in a runaway status, in order to survive on the street. Given that sexual identity is in the formative stages during those years, it may be that the experience results in the “homosexualization”, if you will, of the child, or at least a bi-sexual orientation, due to the devastating experiences of the sexual act by predatory males at such a formative stage, and in such a moral and emotional vacuum.

The poster’s knowledge of moral theology, as well as some basic issues of sexual orientation and identity, is greatly lacking.

Hi otm!

The researcher who we were discussing, Dr. Paul Cameron, specifically rejects the developmental model of homosexuality that you have sketched as dangerously “Freudian.” He prefers a model whereby homosexuality is a choice, entered into merely out of selfish hedonism.

Personally, I do not think that homosexuality is a choice. I was merely pointing out that if one is going to assert that it is, certain problems concerning moral theology arise. After all, if the decision to be a homosexual is a conscious choice, freely entered into with knowledge of all the moral ramifications, then all the conditions for mortal sin have been met.

There is also a problem, as I see it, concerning the developmental model. If one enters into the homosexual condition through poor upbringing or trauma, it seems to me that the psychological damage would remove culpability for the homosexual act. We therefore have a strange situation where the act can only be sinful in theory. In practice, however, because the act is only entered into out of psychosis, the diminished capacity of the homosexual’s free will removes culpability and renders the act blameless.

The issue is extremely complex and it defies blanket categorizations both in the moral and scientific spheres.

 

[otm]

Other Eric:

Hi otm!

The researcher who we were discussing, Dr. Paul Cameron, specifically rejects the developmental model of homosexuality that you have sketched as dangerously “Freudian.” He prefers a model whereby homosexuality is a choice, entered into merely out of selfish hedonism.

Personally, I do not think that homosexuality is a choice. I was merely pointing out that if one is going to assert that it is, certain problems concerning moral theology arise. After all, if the decision to be a homosexual is a conscious choice, freely entered into with knowledge of all the moral ramifications, then all the conditions for mortal sin have been met.

There is also a problem, as I see it, concerning the developmental model. If one enters into the homosexual condition through poor upbringing or trauma, it seems to me that the psychological damage would remove culpability for the homosexual act. We therefore have a strange situation where the act can only be sinful in theory. In practice, however, because the act is only entered into out of psychosis, the diminished capacity of the homosexual’s free will removes culpability and renders the act blameless.

The issue is extremely complex and it defies blanket categorizations both in the moral and scientific spheres.

:The psychological damage may remove part of the culpability, but it does not render one “brain dead”; we still have choices and we still make choices.

The difficulty is that both homeosexuals and heterosexuals are attracted to sexual activity. It is just that one is attracted to sexual activity with the same sex; the other to the opposite sex. And if one has knowledge that sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong, then the culpability goes to the sexual activity outside of marriage far more than to the specific choice of partners.

I would say that one may not have control over who one is attracted to, but one has a choice as to whether or not one acts out on that choice.

One of my classmates married while pregnant (Justice of the Peace), and I don’t recall if the marriage was ever blessed. Partly in order to keep a marriage that started on completely the wrong foot together, they had a second child. The father was about as uninvolved with both children as he could be, and the mother kept attempting the impossible; trying to keep up a facade that they were a normal family. They finally divorced. The second child “came out” in her young adulthood. From what I saw, nurture sure looks like it had a lot to do with it. I don’t know how Freudian that all gets, but I do believe that there is a solid reason that children from two parent familise do much better, and it is not just economic stability.

I don’t know of Cameron, but I don’t see it as just a pure choice based on hedonism. Most people find same sex attraction somewhere from not interested to greatly revolting. And given the dynamics between two homosexuals, it doesn’t fit, in my experience and observation.