I think that is a fair point but it doesn't negate the conclusion of how the Vatican relates to sin. Sin must be acted out. Thus a man isn't really sinning if he has impure thoughts towards someone other than his wife. He is only sinning if he acts upon those thoughts. All you have to do is go back through my exchanges and you'll see this is the interpretation of the Church.
""I think that is a fair point but it doesn't negate the conclusion of how the Vatican relates to sin. Sin must be acted out""
You have No idea what the Church teaches!
From New advent
Article 5. Whether every sin includes an action? Objection 1. It would seem that every sin includes an action. For as merit is compared with virtue, even so is sin compared with vice. Now there can be no merit without an action. Neither, therefore, can there be sin without action.
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.]: So "true is it that every sin is voluntary, that, unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all." Now nothing can be voluntary, save through an act of the will. Therefore every sin implies an act.
Objection 3. Further, if sin could be without act, it would follow that a man sins as soon as he ceases doing what he ought. Now he who never does something that he ought to do, ceases continually doing what he ought. Therefore it would follow that he sins continually; and this is untrue. Therefore there is no sin without an act.
On the contrary, It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to do" does not imply an act .Therefore sin can be without act.
I answer that, The reason for urging this question has reference to the sin of omission, about which there have been various opinions. For some say that in every sin of omission there is some act, either interior or exterior--interior, as when a man wills "not to go to church," when he is bound to go--exterior, as when a man, at the very hour that he is bound to go to church (or even before), occupies himself in such a way that he is hindered from going. This seems, in a way, to amount to the same as the first, for whoever wills one thing that is incompatible with this other, wills, consequently, to go without this other: unless, perchance, it does not occur to him, that what he wishes to do, will hinder him from that which he is bound to do, in which case he might be deemed guilty of negligence. On the other hand, others say, that a sin of omission does not necessarily suppose an act: for the mere fact of not doing what one is bound to do is a sin.
Now each of these opinions has some truth in it. For if in the sin of omission we look merely at that in which the essence of the sin consists, the sin of omission will be sometimes with an interior act, as when a man wills "not to go to church": while sometimes it will be without any act at all, whether interior or exterior, as when a man, at the time that he is bound to go to church, does not think of going or not going to church.
If, however, in the sin of omission, we consider also the causes, or occasions of the omission, then the sin of omission must of necessity include some act. For there is no sin of omission, unless we omit what we can do or not do: and that we turn aside so as not to do what we can do or not do, must needs be due to some cause or occasion, either united with the omission or preceding it. Now if this cause be not in man's power, the omission will not be sinful, as when anyone omits going to church on account of sickness: but if the cause or occasion be subject to the will, the omission is sinful; and such cause, in so far as it is voluntary, must needs always include some act, at least the interior act of the will: which act sometimes bears directly on the omission, as when a man wills "not to go to church," because it is too much trouble; and in this case this act, of its very nature, belongs to the omission, because the volition of any sin whatever, pertains, of itself, to that sin, since voluntariness is essential to sin. Sometimes, however, the act of the will bears directly on something else which hinders man from doing what he ought, whether this something else be united with the omission, as when a man wills to play at the time he ought to go to church--or, precede the omission, as when a man wills to sit up late at night, the result being that he does not go to church in the morning. In this case the act, interior or exterior, is accidental to the omission, since the omission follows outside the intention, and that which is outside the intention is said to be accidental (Phys. ii, text. 49,50). Wherefore it is evident that then the sin of omission has indeed an act united with, or preceding the omission, but that this act is accidental to the sin of omission.
Now in judging about things, we must be guided by that which is proper to them, and not by that which is accidental: and consequently it is truer to say that a sin can be without any act; else the circumstantial acts and occasions would be essential to other actual sins.
Reply to Objection 1. More things are required for good than for evil, since "good results from a whole and entire cause, whereas evil results from each single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv): so that sin may arise from a man doing what he ought not, or by his not doing what he ought; while there can be no merit, unless a man do willingly what he ought to do: wherefore there can be no merit without act, whereas there can be sin without act.
Reply to Objection 2. The term "voluntary" is applied not only to that on which the act of the will is brought to bear, but also to that which we have the power to do or not to do, as stated in Ethic. iii, 5. Hence even not to will may be called voluntary, in so far as man has it in his power to will, and not to will.
Reply to Objection 3. The sin of omission is contrary to an affirmative precept which binds always, but not for always. Hence, by omitting to act, a man sins only for the time at which the affirmative precept binds him to act
Try to explain this one!...
One of the creeds said in the Catholic Mass is this....
The Confiteor
I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. Amen
That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matthew 23:27).You offer:
Thus a man isn't really sinning if he has impure thoughts towards someone other than his wife.
I think that, Yes, he is, if he has the thoughts. The feeling of attraction in itself is not sinful. It's a strong part of what makes babies, and you know Catholics are all in favor of puppies. But when you commit the ACT of fantasizing, of undressing her with your eyes, of saying to yourself, "Hmmm, C-cup or D-cup," that there is an act, sinful one.
I think that the passion of being attracted to a member of the opposite sex is a passion. In itself it is blameless because you didn't do it -- it happened in and to you. It is, or can be, a PROBLEM, but it doesn't rise to the level of culpability.
But it rarely occurs by itself. Usually it is accompanied by welcomed fantasies, however brief, which involve, as I said earlier, using the person for one's pleasure or self-aggrandizement. That's a defect of charity, aside from anything else. So NOW we've got a sin. I think there is freedom involved in whether or not to engage in or entertain those fantasies. Like lots of freedoms, its exercise may have to be learned, but it is, I think, learnable.
Virtues and vices have a habitual side. One has a cigarette after eating or swears when he drops his car keys, and pretty soon the cigarette just appears in one's hands or the oath issues from one's mouth without a conscious act of will. So becoming aware of the now semi-autonomous act, the moment of silent decision, takes effort. Early on it may be the best one can do is say, "Oh! I'm smoking!" and put out the cigarette, or say, "Oh I swore again, I'm sorry, God, it's gross, and I want to stop."
Likewise with the sinful sequels to the good of sexual attraction. One thing I've done is when I catch myself in that activity, is turn away from the lady in question, apologize to God, and pray for her welfare.
At first it seemed to me that the sinful act was indissolubly linked with the attraction. A little sobriety and vigilance and, blammo!, every once in while I can hear the roaring lion before I'm in his jaws.
HD,..I've found the following model to explain sin to be very helpful.
As believers, we have body, soul, and spirit.
Our soul is composed of our mind and our heart.
When we first are saved with eternal life, God, the Holy SPirit regenerates the spirit, and indwells us and seals us.
While we remain in fellowship with Him, in our mind, in our volition, we obey Him and are one with Him.
Our mind might have thoughts or ideas that enter upon it, either from ourselves or others. We might be tempted by deceiving spirits, by our past scarred thinking habits in our mind, or by the Holy Spirit performing His enableing ministry in us as we study Bible doctrine by reading the Word, the Holy SPirit making that Word understood to our spirit supernaturally by our perception of faith, and then making it understood to our mind,..a part of our soul, as GNOSIS.
As Gnosis in the mind, the thought isn't yet actionable, but is simply an understood thought. A mental function.
Next, while we remain in fellowship with Him, He makes that GNOSIS understood to our heart, still in our soul, and the GNOSIS becomes EPIGNOSIS. EPIGNOSIS as a type of knowledge which is usable in daily life.
So far we've discussed how the Holy SPirit works in our soul, while we remain in felloship with Him, thereby a situation has been established by God where He can continue to sanctify us.
Now, we discuss volition.
When in our volition we decide to remain in fellowhip with Him, to obey the truth, then we remain in a state where God is able to continue to further sanctify us without violating His own integrity and immutability.
If, by our volition, we decide in our thinking processes, along a line of thinking which is NOT by God's will, i.e. independent of Him, or in violation of His truth, then we have sinned.
I agree with you whole heartedly, that a thought in the mind, by itself, without our volition, is not yet a sin or disobedience to Him. But, as soon as we add our volition, either we remain in fellowship with Him, or we step out of fellowship and have sinned.
There are many sins which begin as an attitude in our mind, our thinking processes.
Our hearts may be previously scarred from our past lives, our old sin nature, the old man, the natural man, so we might be guilty of many, many, many unknown sins, simply by our scarred souls. When in felloship with Him though, He also brings these to our conscience at His pace. He always does all the work in our sanctification.
So it is very possible to sin in the mind and heart, still soulful activity, a mental attitude sin, if you will,... but we also might manifest that sin in our physical behavior. The physical sin adds the influence of sin upon the body, as well as the mind.
In each case of sin, when the believer confesses that sin in private with God through faith in Christ (turning back to Him) by the invokation of 1John 1:9, the believer is returned to fellowship with God and His sins are forgiven and forgotten. Then the Holy Spirit is free in His grace to continue His sanctification of our thinking.
Is this a fair way to express your understanding of how some thoughts are not sin, yet also accounting for how our volition is involved in sin?
I'm afraid you really are in error what the Church teaches on sin and thoughts and 'act'.
See The Confiteor above for one obvious example. The Confiteor is said often in Mass.