Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter

[HpyCatholic]

Eric,

Great, now a few more questions:

In your view of church teaching is all temptation a sin?

Hypothetically lets say a person started viewing pornography at a young age of his own free will. He knew it was wrong but he did it anyway. Years later he repents of his viewing of pornography and makes a good confession. However, he continues to be tempted to view pornography, but avoids it as much as possible. Occasionally he’ll get mental pictures of pornography that he quickly dispatches.

In your view of church teaching is this temptation a sin even if it is not acted on?

Another hypothetical, a young man is seduced into performing homosexual activities. He knows these activities are wrong but continues to do them out of enjoyment. Years later he repents and has a good confession. However he is still tempted on occasion to perform homosexual activites but he is able to fight them off.

In your view of church teaching is this temptation a sin?

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Eric,

Great, now a few more questions:

In your view of church teaching is all temptation a sin?

Hypothetically lets say a person started viewing pornography at a young age of his own free will. He knew it was wrong but he did it anyway. Years later he repents of his viewing of pornography and makes a good confession. However, he continues to be tempted to view pornography, but avoids it as much as possible. Occasionally he’ll get mental pictures of pornography that he quickly dispatches.

In your view of church teaching is this temptation a sin even if it is not acted on?

Another hypothetical, a young man is seduced into performing homosexual activities. He knows these activities are wrong but continues to do them out of enjoyment. Years later he repents and has a good confession. However he is still tempted on occasion to perform homosexual activites but he is able to fight them off.

In your view of church teaching is this temptation a sin?

Hi HpyCatholic!

I think, at least facially, both hypotheticals involve an individual in a state of sin as he has chosen the condition that he is subject to. In the case of the pornographic connoisseur, he can choose to be released from these temptations by directing them to their proper object, a wife. For the homosexual to be similarly released, he must abandon all homosexual temptations and direct them to a married partner of the opposite sex, effectively changing his orientation.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I’m afraid your reading is wrong. Dr. Cameron is saying that the individual has free will to say yes or no not only to the action, but to the very inclination itself.

Eric, you need to define your terms. I have reread the article. Cameron says that some homosexuals choose that life. That is true. It does not contradict Church teaching at all.

What is your position? Do you think the Church teaches that every single homosexual just has “desires” that pop up from nowhere? Are you saying the Church says that the inclination cannot be chosen?

The CCC says the inclination is disordered. Where does it say She teaches it is or is not chosen in every single case?

 

[fix]

Cameron is saying that some choose those inclinations by experience. He does not say that one intentionally has a thought pop into his head so he can be homosexual, but through experiences one may develope the inclination and foster those inclinations.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Other Eric:

Hi HpyCatholic!

I think, at least facially, both hypotheticals involve an individual in a state of sin as he has chosen the condition that he is subject to. In the case of the pornographic connoisseur, he can choose to be released from these temptations by directing them to their proper object, a wife. For the homosexual to be similarly released, he must abandon all homosexual temptations and direct them to a married partner of the opposite sex, effectively changing his orientation.

Okay by this your saying a single male under the two conditions above has no hope of releasing himself from these sins without marrying a woman? That seems contradictory to church teaching as it does not require a person to be married in order to enter heaven.

I believe many sins start as temptation and that temptation is not always willfully started by an individual. Temptation is an obvious tool of the devil and his minions as he even tried to use them against Christ himself.

From your reasoning it would seem to follow since Christ willfully put himself in a position to be tempted by the devil he is automatically a sinner which is quite obviously contradictory to Catholic as well as Christian teaching in geners. If I have misrepresented your reasoning here please let me know, but from what we have discussed so far the above seems to logically follow from your previous arguments.

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Okay by this your saying a single male under the two conditions above has no hope of releasing himself from these sins without marrying a woman? That seems contradictory to church teaching as it does not require a person to be married in order to enter heaven.

I believe many sins start as temptation and that temptation is not always willfully started by an individual. Temptation is an obvious tool of the devil and his minions as he even tried to use them against Christ himself.

From your reasoning it would seem to follow since Christ willfully put himself in a position to be tempted by the devil he is automatically a sinner which is quite obviously contradictory to Catholic as well as Christian teaching in geners. If I have misrepresented your reasoning here please let me know, but from what we have discussed so far the above seems to logically follow from your previous arguments.

Hi HpyCatholic!

No, Church teaching does not require marriage as a condition to enter heaven, but St. Paul strongly recommends it if one is beset with lustful desires.

As for the presumed sin of Christ, dispensing with the question of whether it would even have been possible for Christ to sin, what would follow from an admission that it was true? What new condition do you mean to erect to define a mortal sin? If willfully, and with full knowledge, choosing that which is objectively evil is no longer enough, what is?

 

[HpyCatholic]

Other Eric:

Hi HpyCatholic!

No, Church teaching does not require marriage as a condition to enter heaven, but St. Paul strongly recommends it if one is beset with lustful desires.

As for the presumed sin of Christ, dispensing with the question of whether it would even have been possible for Christ to sin, what would follow from an admission that it was true? What new condition do you mean to erect to define a mortal sin? If willfully, and with full knowledge, choosing that which is objectively evil is no longer enough, what is?

I definitly would not want anyone to think that were true. What I want to show is that temptation alone is not a sin and therefore your premise that homosexual temptation is an automatic sin is incorrect.

I may be incorrect but it seems to me that Christ himself willfully put himself in a position to be tempted by even speaking with Satan after his 40 days in the desert. Obviously this can’t be a sin since we know Christ is without sin. Hence, even if someone has homosexual tendencies by choice the actual temptations they have are not a sin, however what they choose to do with those temptations could very well lead to sin.

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

I definitly would not want anyone to think that were true. What I want to show is that temptation alone is not a sin and therefore your premise that homosexual temptation is an automatic sin is incorrect.

I may be incorrect but it seems to me that Christ himself willfully put himself in a position to be tempted by even speaking with Satan after his 40 days in the desert. Obviously this can’t be a sin since we know Christ is without sin. Hence, even if someone has homosexual tendencies by choice the actual temptations they have are not a sin, however what they choose to do with those temptations could very well lead to sin.

Hi HpyCatholic!

While interesting, I think the nature of the temptation of Christ quicky gets us into deep waters and paradoxes rendering application to our own fallen natures irrelevant. Christ, being God cannot commit a sin and therefore contradict His own nature. I look upon the temptation of Christ as Satan’s final bid to God to reorder the nature of the universe, since by submitting to any of the temptations Christ would turn something formerly evil into something good. The temptation of Christ is of a substantially different nature than the temptations that man is subject to every day. I’m not entirely sure that the two can be correlated.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Hey Eric

After doing some research I think I have more ammo now

In the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia we have the following entry for temptation:

newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm

In it it explicity states:

Temptation is not in itself sin. No matter how vivid the unholy image may be, no matter how strong the inclination to transgress the law, no matter how vehement the sensation of unlawful satisfaction, as long as there is no consent of the will, there is no sin.

The encyclopedia also states:

It arises sometimes from the propensity to evil inherent in us as a result of original sin. Sometimes it is directly chargeable to the intervention of the Devil, who can furnish the imagination with its sinful subject-matter and stir up the lower powers of the soul. Not infrequently both causes are at work.

I believe this will help with the previous example I gave about Christs temptation. Christ was tempted by the devil himself in the desert. The only difference between his temptation and one of us being tempted by the devil through our thoughts or externally through others is that the devil manifested himself to Christ. Other than this I believe there is no difference. Therefore since we know Christ is without sin we know his temptation by the devil was not a sin.

If you don’t see this as I do then maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point about Christ’s temptation. However, I think you would agree from the definition of temptation alone from the Catholic Encyclopedia that temptation in and of itself is not a sin. Its what you choose to do with that temptation that can lead to sin.

One more quick point if you agree with the definition that temptation can be caused by the devil then how could this be a sin? Couldn’t the devil just tempt anyone and everyone to make them sin? He could and often does/did tempt the greatest saints could that possibly be considered a sin on the part of those saints?

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Hey Eric

After doing some research I think I have more ammo now

In the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia we have the following entry for temptation:

newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm

In it it explicity states:

The encyclopedia also states:

I believe this will help with the previous example I gave about Christs temptation. Christ was tempted by the devil himself in the desert. The only difference between his temptation and one of us being tempted by the devil through our thoughts or externally through others is that the devil manifested himself to Christ. Other than this I believe there is no difference. Therefore since we know Christ is without sin we know his temptation by the devil was not a sin.

If you don’t see this as I do then maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point about Christ’s temptation. However, I think you would agree from the definition of temptation alone from the Catholic Encyclopedia that temptation in and of itself is not a sin. Its what you choose to do with that temptation that can lead to sin.

One more quick point if you agree with the definition that temptation can be caused by the devil then how could this be a sin? Couldn’t the devil just tempt anyone and everyone to make them sin? He could and often does/did tempt the greatest saints could that possibly be considered a sin on the part of those saints?

Hi HpyCatholic!

No, temptation itself is not a sin. That is a separate question from the willful decision to put oneself into a situation in which one knows one is going to be tempted. We have, after all, been taught by Christ to pray not to be led into temptation. So, if we encounter a situation where one proudly enters into a situation where he is going to be tempted but can choose at any moment to abandon it, isn’t the presence of continued temptation manifest evidence that the individual is still harboring the original sinful decision to enter into his condition in the first place?

 

[HpyCatholic]

Well, I had just written a nice 2 paragraph response to you and hit submit. CA then decided to freeze up on me. I lost the response. I’ll try tackling your post again later

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Well, I had just written a nice 2 paragraph response to you and hit submit. CA then decided to freeze up on me. I lost the response. I’ll try tackling your post again later

That sucks.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Other Eric:

Hi HpyCatholic!

No, temptation itself is not a sin. That is a separate question from the willful decision to put oneself into a situation in which one knows one is going to be tempted. We have, after all, been taught by Christ to pray not to be led into temptation. So, if we encounter a situation where one proudly enters into a situation where he is going to be tempted but can choose at any moment to abandon it, isn’t the presence of continued temptation manifest evidence that the individual is still harboring the original sinful decision to enter into his condition in the first place?

Okay lets try this again, I don’t know why it pains me so much to have to re-write something, that could be a whole other thread.

Lets go back to your first assertion if homosexuality is a choice then someone who has homosexual temptations is committing a sin because he willfully put himself in that situation. I could agree with this if the person really did willfully put himself in that position AND has not repented of his sins. If the person has performed a good confession and is absolved of his sins then he can still be saved. In other words it doesn’t make it impossible for them to achieve salvation. The reason I believe this is even if the individual is tempted again he can’t be held accountable for a past sin that has been forgiven. If there is no new sin then there is no sin. Am I making sense?

Also, it seems to me that Dr. Cameron believes that homosexuality starts at a young age. If this is true then as a child the seeds of homosexuality that grow in them may not have been willfully started due to children not yet having a well formed conscience.

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Okay lets try this again, I don’t know why it pains me so much to have to re-write something, that could be a whole other thread.

Lets go back to your first assertion if homosexuality is a choice then someone who has homosexual temptations is committing a sin because he willfully put himself in that situation. I could agree with this if the person really did willfully put himself in that position AND has not repented of his sins. If the person has performed a good confession and is absolved of his sins then he can still be saved. In other words it doesn’t make it impossible for them to achieve salvation. The reason I believe this is even if the individual is tempted again he can’t be held accountable for a past sin that has been forgiven. If there is no new sin then there is no sin. Am I making sense?

Also, it seems to me that Dr. Cameron believes that homosexuality starts at a young age. If this is true then as a child the seeds of homosexuality that grow in them may not have been willfully started due to children not yet having a well formed conscience.

Hi HpyCatholic!

You should cheat, like me. I type all of my responses into a word processor, then copy and paste them into the reply box. It allows me to more easily read over my responses for flow and automatically spell-checks for me. This has the effect of making me appear so much smarter than I actually am.

That homosexuality is a condition that can exist separate from any of its physical manifestations is a point I do not mean to dispute. The nature of the choice the “choice” that one would have to make in order to be subject to the condition bears heavily upon the question of whether the choice is, in fact, sinful. In Cameron’s article, the choice is not one made out of trauma, it is made simply to satisfy a hedonistic impulse. The way out of the condition is also, apparently, a matter of choice that Dr. Cameron compares to such things the decision of what type of clothing to wear. Implicit in this comparison is the idea the homosexual’s attraction to members of his own gender is not a condition that arises from the result of psychological trauma but a condition over which the homosexual retains complete power over in contradiction to the approach taken by some 12-step programs who deal with this. If the decision to be a homosexual is as easy as the decision over which extra-value meal® to order, then how can the condition not be a sin?

If the condition fuctions in this way, then it is completely irrelevant that the decision is initially made in childhood. The nature of the choice is that the individual affirms it every day of his life. So, if we happen to have a seven-year-old child who is making these decisions, then her culpability is diminished, but only because she cannot be said to have knowledge of the intrinsic evil that she is doing not because the decision itself is blameless. Later on, when she could no longer plausibly claim ignorance, the constant affirmation that the condition requires for its existence becomes culpable and the condition becomes sinful.