Author Topic: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity (Read 3283 times)

Geremia · « **on:** December 08, 2014, 02:47:26 PM »

St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Rom. 1:24

Quote

Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart [because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25)], unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves

in cap. 1 l. 7, discusses the causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity:

Quote

139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).

The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.

Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.
-----------------------------------------------------------
(translation from: Larcher, Fabian R., trans. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, with parallel Latin and the Greek text of the epistle. Lander, Wyo.: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012. pp. 47-8)

Important parts:

"God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil"
In other words: He, the Author of nature, does not put same-sex attraction in human nature.

St. Thomas clearly says: "one's first sin" (in this case: idolatry, turning away from God, "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator") "is a cause of the next" (in this case: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, "uncleanness," "dishonoring their own bodies among themselves").
Thus ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs' personal sins made them ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Joe73 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2017, 12:06:34 AM »

I know this is an old post, but I think people are still reading it. I have to disagree with your conclusion, I know it was just a simple mistake, but it might make people confused. I don't want people to automatically assume they are responsible for having ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ attractions. The main mistake you made was confusing the words and definitions. The definition of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is one who is sɛҳuąƖly attracted to the same sex. If you go by that definition, Your conclusion: "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ's personal sins made them ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" is not proven. I've explained how down below. I am a sucker for arguing, I took a class on logic once. and I couldn't resist writing down a very logical argument. If you enjoy logical debate you can read it below. otherwise you don't have to, and you might find it annoying. Sorry about that...

Code: [Select]

Your evidence from St. Thomas: it is not in human nature(God' design, for use to be inclined towards sin)I have reworded this: All humans unaffected by sin are not humans that have an inclination to sinWe know ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have an inclination to sin(ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ feelings)So logically this is what we can learn

All [b]humans unaffected by sin[/b] are not [b]humans that have an inclination to sin[/b]
All ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are [b]humans that have an inclination to sin[/b]
Therefore [b]ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs[/b] are not [b]humans unaffected by sin[/b]
 (reworded: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been affected by sin)
So we know ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been affected by sin. We don't know what type of sin(personal sin, original sin, another's sin...)[list][li]Your next piece of evidence for St. Thomas was: sins are indirectly caused/enabled by ones first sin(any sin before the current one).[/li]
[/list]


All [b]Subsequent sins [/b]are [b]sins(indirectly or incidentally)caused by one's first sin[/b]
[b]all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions[/b] are [b]subsequent sins[/b](probably)
Therefore [b]all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions [/b]are[b] sins(indirectly or incidentally) caused by one's first sin[/b]
(reworded: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions are enabled/indirectly caused by ones first sin(their personal sin).
Lets put those two together


ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been affected by sin
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions are caused/affected by personal sin


[i]This is what we can conclude.[/i]


[i]The problem is you got ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ persons, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions mixed up. first argument doesn't quite prove your conclusion(as explained above).[/i]
[i]You mixed up the words in the second conclusion. If I change ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, then I end up with your conclusion.[/i]

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are caused/affected by personal sin aka ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ's personal sins made them ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Geremia · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2017, 01:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Joe73 on August 09, 2017, 12:06:34 AM

I don't want people to automatically assume they are responsible for having ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ attractions.

Of course they are. Effeminacy itself is a mortal sin, and so is men sleeping with men (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and chapter 15 of the 6^th session of the Council of Trent).

Joe73 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2017, 12:37:20 AM »

Quote from: Geremia on August 10, 2017, 01:39:46 PM

Of course they are. Effeminacy itself is a mortal sin, and so is men sleeping with men (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and chapter 15 of the 6^th session of the Council of Trent).

I know that.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
That's not what I meant by responsible.

What I meant is that they shouldn't feel ashamed for having the feelings.
Yes they are responsible for dealing with them, and to not act on them, but their feelings are not neccessarily the result of their previous actions

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2017, 01:41:17 PM »

The initial "feeling" or "attraction" was suggested by Satan and/or his minions (it is not something they were born with). I think he (Satan) is always testing us, baiting us, to find our weaknesses and then doing whatever he can to exploit those weaknesses and lure us deeper into sin.

Those who are not close to God do not have the strength or wisdom to flee temptations and are then "given over" to the sin which continues to spiral downward out of control.

People choose whether to stay close to God and avail themselves of the graces He gives, or drift away and get caught up in the whirlpool of sin that is offered by the Prince of this world.

So while people with temptation to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity may "honestly" believe they were born that way, I think it is only because they were either not taught at an early age to attach themselves to God, or rejected Him at some point for some unacknowledged reason.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity (Read 3283 times)

Geremia

St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity

Joe73

Re: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity

Geremia

Re: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity

Joe73

Re: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity

Marlelar

Re: St. Thomas on the Causality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity