TEMPTATION

As here conceived, temptation is an inducement to sin. tempting god is another sense of the term connoting the lack of trust that is contrary to the virtue of hope. For a treatment of temptation by God as a test of man's fidelity, see temptation (in the bible).

Analysis. In every temptation man is confronted by a temporal good recognized as such and seen as conflicting with his eternal good. St. Thomas describes the attraction of a temporal good in terms of love. Instead of true love it is the inordinate love of self from which every sin arises: "That man inordinately desires a temporal good proceeds from this that he inordinately loves himself … "(Summa Theologiae 1a2ae, 77.4). Temptation, then, is an appeal to egoism in opposition to man's union by love with God, other persons, and himself.

Temptation is not sin, though the sorely tempted may think so; however, it does arise at times from past sinful indulgence. In itself it is essentially a situation of choice: a confrontation by evil toward which egoism inclines the subject, and a confrontation by the good. Temptation is a call to the Christian either to reaffirm his adherence to Christ or to commit his freedom to the values of Satan and the world. It is an occasion of authentic affirmation of the true self and of ratification of one's grafting onto Jesus by Baptism.

Sources. Satan is the arch-tempter of men, as Holy Writ teaches. Yet not every sin is to be ascribed to him as its source, except remotely by reason of his seduction of Adam, which effected concupiscence in man. The discernment of spirits in ascetical theology gives clues to Satan's activity. The world as temptation embraces other men or impersonal objects, either individually as proposing false values, or collectively as representing the cultural ethos insofar as this is foreign to Christ and His teaching.

In one sense temptation is man's continual lot. To escape all the allurements of evil would require flight from this life. In the proper sense, however, Satan and the world are sources of temptation only when their influence is consciously experienced and the subject responds by rejection or capitulation. This occurs when the external stimulus meets with an internal resonance in man's nature. The resonance is due to an elemental disharmony, a basic tension between sensibility and spirituality compounded with the wound in nature that is the consequence of original sin. In addition to this common nature, the heritage of all Adam's sons, there is the particular nature of each person fashioned by habitual patterns of response, basically oriented to love or to egoism, psychologically sound or unsound. Since external sources tempt only in conjunction with nature, all temptation is reducible to nature not as a principle of good but as moving toward egoism away from love.

Unique yet Common. Each temptation is a unique, singular experience. The same evil enticing the same person on two occasions does not add up to the same temptation. In reality the subject himself is not altogether the same. He is more experienced than before, more or less attentive, his social support greater or less. This does not mean that norms of conduct for temptation are worthless, but that they are no substitute for responsible personal

judgment or the application of such norms to the unique situation.

The basis for the validity of these norms is the common elements that perdure through temptations. Men have common reactions to evil. Likewise the person is largely the same who experienced the earlier enticement. This is particularly so because of his habits and his basic orientation.

Good or bad habits affect the subject in that he brings to temptation a pattern of response, woven from his past decisions in the face of evil. These notably influence his present choice. The importance of forming good habits and undoing bad ones is thus elementary. Temptation is not solely a threat to present adherence to the moral ideal but it affects man's pattern of response to God's invitations.

More important still is the subject's basic orientation to the moral good and the person of Christ in the depths of his being, his fundamental posture of commitment to egoism or to the union of love with the Absolute Other. This adhesion to God in the spiritual depths of the person strongly influences all his moral decisions. By this general orientation all his subsequent choices are in part already made. This is the meaning of St. Thomas's demand that man order himself to his proper end upon reaching the use of reason (Summa Theologiae 1a2ae, 89.6).

Polarity. By opposing external and internal temptations, moralists do not mean that external temptations have no effect on the subject, whereas internal temptations do. The exterior temptation is one of which man is merely aware but by which he is not sensibly and effectively drawn. More accurately, temptation is characterized by an interior-exterior polarity: a given enticement is more or less interior or exterior, depending on the degree to which it engages the subject.

Temptations are also termed grave or light—grave when the subject is strongly inclined to choose a serious evil, and light if the evil is slight, or if it exerts little attraction. But many temptations are neither grave nor light. Experience of temptation is better expressed by a polarity of gravity-lightness, extending from grave through less grave, more or less light, to light enticements. This is important for the formulation of moral and ascetical directions for times of temptation.

Resistance. To resist temptation is a moral imperative, since temptation is a threat to the union of love with God. Moral theologians discuss the quality of resistance to be set up. In general, one must do what is required to keep from capitulating. This involves at least negative resistance, i.e., withholding consent though doing nothing more. But that such minimal effort does not suffice is clear from experience and from the Church's condemnation of the contrary teaching of quietism (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symolorum, ed. A. Schönmetzer 2217,2237). Positive resistance, the use of some means, such as prayer or disapproval, is always advisable. Whether it is always a duty is disputed. It is a duty, generally speaking, when temptation is grave. Whether positive resistance need also be direct, that is by an act contrary to the temptation, e.g., humility when tempted to pride, cannot be generically stated. Sometimes, in fact, indirect means are to be preferred, e.g., diverting attention when tempted against faith or chastity.

Strategy. As an inducement moving the subject to egoism, temptation is best prevented by outgoing love. "Temptations are to be met by their contraries," says an old ascetic rule. This is true on three levels. At the deepest level, more intense commitment to the union of love (or recommitment if one has forsaken it) makes one basically stronger against evil. This includes growth in super-natural charity and sanctifying grace, or their recovery when lost. At the level of habitual response, the more vigorous the various virtues, concrete manifestations of love, and the more complete the freedom from vices and egoism, the more armed one is against evil. At the level of acts, to interpose an act of love is effectively to disarm temptation; such an act would be, e.g., service of others when tempted to prejudice.

Other generic defenses are prayer, by which actual grace is won, and the Sacraments, especially Penance with its sacramental graces, and the Eucharist, the Sacrament of love par excellence. Specific means are found in ascetic and pastoral-moral literature.

See Also: sin, occasions of; deadly sins.

Bibliography: r. brouillard, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant, 15 v. (Paris 1903–50; Tables générales 1951–) 15.1:116–127. a. kÖberle, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 7 v. (3d ed. Tübingen 1957–65) 6:1385–86. thomas aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1a2ae, 77.4–5; 79.1; 80.1–4. b. cooke, "The Hour of Temptation," Way 2 (1962) 177–187. e. f. regatillo and m. zalba, Theologiae moralis summa, 3 v. (Biblioteca de Autores cristianos; Madrid 1952–54) 1:682–701. c. baumgartner, Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique. Doctrine et histoire, ed., m. viller et al. (Paris 1932) 2.1:1343–73. Satan, ed. bruno de jÉsus-marie, tr. m. carroll et al. (New York 1952). francis de sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, tr. m. day (Westminster, MD 1956) 206–218.

[r. h. springer]