Are sins of concupiscence always voluntary to some degree?

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by fakename

I wish.

The answer here is not totally clear.

I know that there must be in someway, an involuntary voluntariness to some thoughts, or else why would people insist on not listening to certain music or not looking at certain things? If we had totally control, then we could feel unaffected by any stimulus and we could look upon certain people w/o any lust.

The answer to my question I feel, is to be found in answering why it is possible that people can habituate themselves to stimuli at first with difficulty, and later without it?

My understanding is we are 'hard-wired' with a bunch of 'will', some of which is affected by original sin (lust, gluttony, wrath, pride). We do not choose to have them, although they are 'voluntary' in the sense that they pertain to the will.

[perro sarnoso]

Originally Posted by fakename

Are sins of concupiscence always voluntary to some degree?

That is, is one always at least partly responsible for these?

I think there's a good chance that they are and we do know that some things are willed no matter what happens (like the love of God in the afterlife).

With concupiscience it is us, all the way. Of course we get the influence of the world and the suggestions of the devil but, concupiscience is sufficiently strong to do us in all on our own.

I see; I covet and I act. "The benefit to me,me, me.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by davidv

Once square, it is no longer a circle. Can you admit the illogic in your question. Simulataneous contradictories are logically impossible.

If you think my answer was concocted, I don't have anything else to say. I would say you confusion is of you own making.

What do you think my argument was and which premise(s) was(were) false?

I said that a square could not be a circle but I also said that there is some way to prove (in a non-essential way) that it is (this is what Bryson did).

So the proof is this: In any genus in which one can find a greater and a lesser than something, one can find what is equal; but in the genus of squares one can find a greater and a lesser than a circle; therefore, one can also find a square equal to a circle.

That's not a demonstration that a square is or can be essentially a circle.

Anyway I said that your premise that all newly done actions require conscious, onerous effort is false.

[Linusthe2nd]

[quote=fakename;9403657]Yeah, that could be a problem but I doubt Aquinas would've missed such an obvious logical problem.

So how does one solve the problem? I think the answer is that concupiscence renders an act voluntary in the sense that all attraction is something that makes an act more voluntary than not. We see this in everyday life when people are not considered less responsible for something just because they had an incentive to do it. Indeed, it is by assigning an incentive ( a motive) that one also assigns guilt or innocence in a trial.

The act is involuntary in the sense that we cannot control the nature of the mind and the body so that supposing that we did meet with an incentive, then we could avoid being drawn to it.

That's the way which Aquinas talks about free will and desire. Therefore the incentive cannot be overpoweringly strong or else freedom would be diminished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You don't understand. Every man who ever lived except Jesus Christ and perhaps His mother, Mary suffered from concupiscence. Have they all sinned? No. All the Saints suffered from concupiscence, all of them!!!! Yet they over came, at least in the end, the natural attraction to evil thoughts, desires, feelings. But these attractions are never sins, no matter how violent they are as long as we do not give full concent to them.

With the grace of God, with the sacraments, with prayer, with fasting, with attending to our duties of state, with perseverence, we can all conquer concupiscence or at least reach the point where we will not concent to these temptations. Now wether or not God will give us total relief is doubtful - that would be in the order of a moral miracle, though this was given to a few saints. But God in His mercy, will permit a lessening of their frequency or violence. We can only pray and be calm.

[fakename]

[quote=Linusthe2nd;9485339]

Originally Posted by fakename

Yeah, that could be a problem but I doubt Aquinas would've missed such an obvious logical problem.

So how does one solve the problem? I think the answer is that concupiscence renders an act voluntary in the sense that all attraction is something that makes an act more voluntary than not. We see this in everyday life when people are not considered less responsible for something just because they had an incentive to do it. Indeed, it is by assigning an incentive ( a motive) that one also assigns guilt or innocence in a trial.

The act is involuntary in the sense that we cannot control the nature of the mind and the body so that supposing that we did meet with an incentive, then we could avoid being drawn to it.

That's the way which Aquinas talks about free will and desire. Therefore the incentive cannot be overpoweringly strong or else freedom would be diminished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You don't understand. Every man who ever lived except Jesus Christ and perhaps His mother, Mary suffered from concupiscence. Have they all sinned? No. All the Saints suffered from concupiscence, all of them!!!! Yet they over came, at least in the end, the natural attraction to evil thoughts, desires, feelings. But these attractions are never sins, no matter how violent they are as long as we do not give full concent to them.

With the grace of God, with the sacraments, with prayer, with fasting, with attending to our duties of state, with perseverence, we can all conquer concupiscence or at least reach the point where we will not concent to these temptations. Now wether or not God will give us total relief is doubtful - that would be in the order of a moral miracle, though this was given to a few saints. But God in His mercy, will permit a lessening of their frequency or violence. We can only pray and be calm.

This post allows me to clear up a couple of things even to myself.

Firstly, I only mean that a sin committed out of temptation is rendered more voluntary and not less, and this is indicated in the fact that if someone killed someone else out of a love of gold, the fact that he did what he did out of love for something else renders a motive, and in trials, a motive is a necessary condition for someone to be guilty.

Secondly, a temptation is not a sin, it is true. But what are temptations? These are merely proposals like "you can either do or not do x" (but not all proposals are probably temptations so temptations are not essentially proposals, what are they I know not, perhaps we should call them undecided moral questions). Now when someone starts to make a choice one or the other way, then one is entering the area of sin and not sin and so, since somethings are more or less appealing, there is greater or less chance that a person will choose either excess or defect in these things.

[lulu88]

[quote=fakename;9489480]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd

This post allows me to clear up a couple of things even to myself.

Firstly, I only mean that a sin committed out of temptation is rendered more voluntary and not less, and this is indicated in the fact that if someone killed someone else out of a love of gold, the fact that he did what he did out of love for something else renders a motive, and in trials, a motive is a necessary condition for someone to be guilty.

Secondly, a temptation is not a sin, it is true. But what are temptations? These are merely proposals like "you can either do or not do x" (but not all proposals are probably temptations so temptations are not essentially proposals, what are they I know not, perhaps we should call them undecided moral questions). Now when someone starts to make a choice one or the other way, then one is entering the area of sin and not sin and so, since somethings are more or less appealing, there is greater or less chance that a person will choose either excess or defect in these things.

Well said, I concur, what makes a sin, is the INTENT.

Lulu