Is pedophilia more sinful than homosexuality?

[JimG]

If by pedophilia and homosexuality, one means particular types of sexual inclinations, that it would seem that neither one is sinful unless willingly acted upon. In the same way, a sexual inclination toward a person of the opposite sex becomes sinful only if one willfully engages in lustful desires, or fornication, or adultery.

[Usagi]

An adult who has sex with a child or young teenager invariably commits rape, over and above any concerns about having sex with a forbidden "target," so I would say that the pedophilic act is very much worse.

Two men or two women having consensual sex may be sinful, but it's not generally my business to intervene in their activities. An adult raping a child (or another adult, of either sex), on the other hand, imposes on me a duty to call the cops and possibly intervene physically if I am able to do so.

Usagi

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Usagi

An adult who has sex with a child or young teenager invariably commits rape, over and above any concerns about having sex with a forbidden "target," so I would say that the pedophilic act is very much worse.

Two men or two women having consensual sex may be sinful, but it's not generally my business to intervene in their activities. An adult raping a child (or another adult, of either sex), on the other hand, imposes on me a duty to call the cops and possibly intervene physically if I am able to do so.

Usagi

Agreed. But it is the act that is sinful, not the inclination. (The inclination may be disordered, but that is a distinct matter.)

[Usagi]

Originally Posted by JimG

Agreed. But it is the act that is sinful, not the inclination. (The inclination may be disordered, but that is a distinct matter.)

Agreed. That's why I talked about "having sex" in various combinations rather than just speaking of the conditions in general.

Usagi

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by GEddie

What would motivate the veterinarian in your example to go killing dogs?

There is always something twisted in our psyche when we become involved in sinning. Without knowing what that factor is, it is pointless to speculate on the sin's relative severity.

That goes for pedophiliac/gay issues. Pedophilia excites more anger than does gayness, possibly because of the relative innocence of the youths involved. But the anger felt by those uninvolved does not, in itself, equate to severity of sin.

ICXC NIKA

The Veterinarian did it out of blood lust.

But now there's a third man on the other side of town who is a Relativist. He just finished reading a series of articles by Stanley Fish, and was convinced that there was inherently nothing morally right or wrong. So he shot a farmers yard dogs as moving target practice last night.

Now there's three men...

One sinned out of lust
One sinned out of insanity
One sinned because he had no faith

Are all three sins equal in measure?

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by GEddie

That goes for pedophiliac/gay issues. Pedophilia excites more anger than does gayness, possibly because of the relative innocence of the youths involved. But the anger felt by those uninvolved does not, in itself, equate to severity of sin.

ICXC NIKA

This is a great point too...

Whether the sin is mass murder or repetitive mind groping, there is no difference in severity here either. It is our modern society with its relativistic ideology that actually compromises our perception of the severity of all mortal sins. They are all equally repulsive as far as we can say for sure... Right?

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by TEPO

Yes, the subjective nature of sin... Surely the church has a position on this to some extent... I would think.

The Catholic Church does discuss circumstances which determine one's responsibility for sin (the subjective nature of sin). Here are a few pertinent sections from the catechism (for the full context it would be easy to look up the entire relevant sections).


CCC 1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

CCC 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Essenstially, sin involves objective wrong, but whether the sinner is held responsible for that wrong is a complicated matter involving their freedom of will (which is no doubt influenced by mental disorders, or even to a degree tendencies) and their knowledge of the matter (the formation of their conscience.

It is completely wrong to declare that all practicing homosexuals will go to hell because they die in mortal sin. We don't know this at all. God alone is the judge of each individual. We can only look at the objective nature of the sin and say that it is wrong. We do not know whether God will hold each sinner accountable.

The same goes for pedophilia, although as others have addressed, we have a graver concern to erradicate this sin wherever we encounter it for the protection of innocents.

[jmvizanko]

Originally Posted by TEPO

If pedophilia is a mental "disorder" that requires treatment, then how is it a sin..?

If homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but a sexual "orientation" that requires no treatment, then how is it not a sin..?

Is it true then that the sin of acting out as a homosexual with no remorse is more grave than the sin of acting out as a pedophile full of guilt?

Well outside of the Christian perspective that all sins are equally evil (such as murder and stealing a piece of gum), its definitely more evil. Adults can consent to having gay sex. Children cannot give consent, and are therefore being raped. One is two adults doing something the both want to to each other, and one is an adult doing things to a child that doesn't even understand what is being done to them, even if they are not outwardly resisting it.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by dailey

A mortal sin is a mortal sin. I don't get how why people try to figure out which one is worse?

The Church considers it significant. A deadly disease is a deadly disease, but in better understanding it, a cure may be found.

http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/...hpt1art8.shtml

Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity....

The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

As the latter part of this indicates that the person wronged affects the gravity of the sin, surely damaging children is worse than damaging oneself, especially in light of the words of Jesus, millstone and all that.

[Arizona Mike]

"Pedophilia" is a psychiatric diagnosis of a sexual attraction to children. One could be a pedophile one's whole life and not act on those urges. Sexual abuse of children may (or may not) stem from such a behavioral disorder, but such actions are not covered under the legal standard of nonculpability for reasons of insanity.

Not all the people who harm children sexually are pedophiles, by the way. Many of those involved in the sexual abuse of children (often the most violent ones) are "non-preferential" sexual offenders who don't have an exclusive sexual interest in children, but act out of a desire to demonstrate control and dominance over a less-powerful person, and their victims can include both adults and children, of both genders. The victims of child abduction resulting in homicide are more likely to have suffered from the actions of non-preferential offenders (with a wider base of victims) than preferential offenders (the classic "pedophile"). In both cases, there could a wide number of contributing factors to a desire to commit such evils (genetics, abuse in childhood, early sexual exposure, pre-natal substance abuse, or a combination of such factors), but ultimately, free will is the ultimate determiner of what actions they take. External factors may impel, but they don't compel. No predisposition can override the individual's knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose to do or not do an act.

Is it more sinful than consensual homosexual acts between adults? Common sense would seem to tell us so, and the fact that Jesus described the abuse of children as meriting special (quite specific) punishment in Matthew 18:6, to a degree of detail that is probably unique in the gospels for a specific sin, would also tell us so, as well as Jesus' description of the special judgement that awaits such offenders.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by pnewton

The Church considers it significant. A deadly disease is a deadly disease, but in better understanding it, a cure may be found.

http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/...hpt1art8.shtml
As the latter part of this indicates that the person wronged affects the gravity of the sin, surely damaging children is worse than damaging oneself, especially in light of the words of Jesus, millstone and all that.

It makes no difference. As I said in an earlier post the effect is the same (both put you in a state of mortal sin) and the consequence of dying unrepentant is the same (both send you to Hell) so the difference in gravity of a mortal sin is not relevant.

[dailey]

Originally Posted by pnewton

The Church considers it significant. A deadly disease is a deadly disease, but in better understanding it, a cure may be found.

.

Huh? I'm a bit confused by your answer. I was simply stating what the Church states. Mortal sin can send you to hell. So to say one sin (assuming they are both mortal) is "worse", IMO, makes no sense.

However, I do realize how society views pedophiles so I can *see* where it may be viewed as "worse". But I am willing to bet a pretty penny that there are pedophiles who made it to heaven..and many "good" folks who didn't...

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by dailey

Huh? I'm a bit confused by your answer. I was simply stating what the Church states. Mortal sin can send you to hell. So to say one sin (assuming they are both mortal) is "worse", IMO, makes no sense.

However, I do realize how society views pedophiles so I can *see* where it may be viewed as "worse". But I am willing to bet a pretty penny that there are pedophiles who made it to heaven..and many "good" folks who didn't...

Indeed, we are likely to meet heinous sinners of all stripes in Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by thistle

It makes no difference. As I said in an earlier post the effect is the same (both put you in a state of mortal sin) and the consequence of dying unrepentant is the same (both send you to Hell) so the difference in gravity of a mortal sin is not relevant.

Actually, many theologians have hypothesised regarding the nature of hell and whether eternal punishment will be equivalent for all there. There are theories (and all specific matter regarding hell are but theories) that eternal punishment will be worse for some than others, depending on their respective sins.

Moreover, while mortal sins can be forgiven through confession, temporal punishments will remain. So a "worse" mortal sin will have a greater temporal punishment attached.

While a mortal sin is a mortal sin, there may be other factors in determining whether one is worse than another. Certainly, from the viewpoint of a victim, I think sins definitely vary in their degree. If I am a single man and I masturbate, I commit mortal sin, but who, other than me, is a victim? If I am a married man with a family and I commit adultery, my sin has many victims, although it falls in the same class of mortal sin as the previous. If I commit purgury under oath to save my own skin, it may be a mortal sin, but if I commit purgury and implicate an innocent person in a crime, it is a much worse sin.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by underacloud

Actually, many theologians have hypothesised regarding the nature of hell and whether eternal punishment will be equivalent for all there. There are theories (and all specific matter regarding hell are but theories) that eternal punishment will be worse for some than others, depending on their respective sins.

Moreover, while mortal sins can be forgiven through confession, temporal punishments will remain. So a "worse" mortal sin will have a greater temporal punishment attached.

While a mortal sin is a mortal sin, there may be other factors in determining whether one is worse than another. Certainly, from the viewpoint of a victim, I think sins definitely vary in their degree. If I am a single man and I masturbate, I commit mortal sin, but who, other than me, is a victim? If I am a married man with a family and I commit adultery, my sin has many victims, although it falls in the same class of mortal sin as the previous. If I commit purgury under oath to save my own skin, it may be a mortal sin, but if I commit purgury and implicate an innocent person in a crime, it is a much worse sin.

None of that makes any difference to your immortal soul. A mortal sin is a mortal sin if you die unrepentant and you go to Hell.
Also even if there are additional punishments in Hell for worse offenders again I do not see what difference it makes because the Church teaches that the chief punishment of Hell (which applies to everyone there) is eternal separation from God so what difference will some additional punishments make?