CCC 1849 and corrupt nature


I know someone who likes to argue that becoming aroused by women in certain situations is “normal”. I think to myself and I have told him. “Yes normal now. That our nature is now corrupt. Originally no it would not have been normal.” CCC 1849 says sin is an “offense to reason”. How would that apply for example if you are standing outside and a neighbor goes by say, in a bikini. Normally we shouldn’t get aroused should we? If we did, or didn’t which is contrary and which is in conformance with reason?

Does this make sense? :shrug:

Three things here: sexuality, reasoning, and sin.


It’s not a sin to be aroused by a woman.


Snickers… you need snickers


It’s the way God made us.


Hmm, this question is as old as St Augustine. He speculated that perhaps, prior to the fall, “arousal” was something under our voluntary control. Yet, he also accepted that in our current state, it could occur involuntarily and was not sinful of itself. :wink:


Thats a dangerous assumption my slippery friend. The Catchechism and the Pope both clearly state that homosexuality is not a choice and were created that way by God. Being aroused by a women is not normal for everyone.


Now we are going to get into a long discussion about original sin and the origin of homosexual attraction.

Clearly, and according to Christ himself, from the beginning, God made human beings in a certain way, male and female. That’s what I am referring to when I say God created us this way. And the OP’s question is about a man being attracted to a woman.

This is not to deny that homosexual attraction exists. Of course it does, self evidently. The Church does not hold this attraction to be sinful.

To say the Church and Pope clearly state that human beings are created by God with a homosexual tendency is an overreach. I would be interested to see where the Church or Pope have said that…
(and I don’t pretend to have an answer either)


Yes, there is nothing wrong with admiring the beauty of the female body, in fact, we are supposed to do that.

It is the work of Satan that makes us want to shield our kids eyes from such things and assume it is wrong to look upon the body in such a way, Satan has succeeded at making a large number of people today believe the human body is nasty/ dirty, and we should look away, hide our kids eyes, etc.

It only becomes sinful if you start thinking about doing sexual things to the female body.


Ok then what are our thoughts supposed to be? You look upon and admire a woman’s beauty? What is that? Thinking sexual thoughts? If not that is certainly what it goes to. Also “thinking about doing things” is that normal? When does act come in here? This issue seems to be wide open to me. I’d like to figure it out.


Sin is an act. Thinking things is not sinful,until you realize what you are doing, and act on it. That action might be entertaining thoughts, it might be continuing to gaze, approaching the woman for sex…whatever it might be.

When you realize you are aroused, you act chastely.

If this woman is my wife, sex and the associated thoughts are appropriate. If this is my neighbor’s wife, those thoughts are not appropriate.


Ok act chastely. I’m sure the church can teach that. Entertaining thoughts. So that’s an act? OK when does that begin? When things turn lustful?


The Church does teach that. Everyone is called to live chastely.

Yes, entertaining desire for someone that is not proper to you goes off into lust. It is not ordered to any good end.
At the point you realize where you are going, you make a choice to salivate and fantasize, or turn away.
You make a choice to act, this way or that.
Thinking is frequently not considered to be acting, and so we think heavily about a thing that should be dropped. We convince ourselves that we can think about sin without entering into it. :rotfl:

That is a handy excuse for starting down the road to further lust. The trap awaits and it always starts with one small step.


Unfortunately just looking and admiring do go to lusting very quickly, if I see a very attractive female with a nice body, I will admire it…but ‘admiring’ it is probably sexual in itself, its not the same thing as admiring a beautiful car and saying Gee Id love to drive around in that car, I like the shape of it. When we admire a female with a nice body, it is almost impossible to not lust, I mean, admiring it is the sort of the same thing as saying, Gee, she has a nice body, Id like to…(blank blank blank) her.

The more I think about it, I dont see how someone could JUST admire the female body for its beauty without immediately going to lusting, as admiring the body is pretty much the same thing as saying, Id like to do sexual things with her (or that body).

I guess you would have to be a very strong person to resist lusting.


Strength is to look away and admit that we are not strong enough to engage all that and stay chaste.


Yes this can be kind of tricky. That’s for sure.


It’s not really tricky. It’s difficult.
Me personally, I want to enjoy every bit of scenery I can without having to go to confession. :o

So that’s the battle, to know where the boundary is, and to know where crossing that boundary inevitable leads.
If I’m thinking about where the boundary is, it’s time to stop.


So would the best thing to do to figure this stuff out learn all one can about the church’s teachings in chastity. That’s what this is ultimately about.


Sin is not accidental, sin is done willfully so say that women came by and you were aroused unintentionally then it is not sin. Now if this were to happen and you deliberately started thinking lustful thoughts, and it caused you to get aroused this would be sin.


This may sound funny but how are you aroused unintentionally ? Maybe it’s because I would have lustful thoughts. Now I am thinking about situations where the women go around half clothed. Of course there’s an issue with them there too.


I think you have misunderstood what was said.

What is “normal” is that we have a fallen nature, are inclined away from God, and live in a fallen world that is corrupted by sin. It may not be best to use the “normal” as a standard.

But, even if a person is “born that way”, it changes nothing of what the Church teaches.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit