Defining the line where lust begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter SgtSchultz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SgtSchultz

Guest
So how does one determine whether a thought or a look is a lustful one? Is fantasising about intimate with the object of one’s attraction the factor? If not, what is?

If a guy is walking down the street, sees a pretty girl, and thinks to himself “wow, look at that cutie! She’s adorable, has lovely legs and looks good in that dress”, is he lusting as long as he doesn’t start thinking “and I sure would like to do to her!”?

What if a guy knows someone and thinks to himself “Amy sure is something. She’s smart, bubbly, and sweet, haves an angelic voice, and she is cute and lovely.”? Would it be any different if one of the things he likes about Amy are her breasts (assuming they are not being immodestly displayed)?

Does dwelling on how a stranger’s looks (or those of someone familiar) equate lust in itself?
 
So how does one determine whether a thought or a look is a lustful one? Is fantasising about intimate with the object of one’s attraction the factor? If not, what is?

If a guy is walking down the street, sees a pretty girl, and thinks to himself “wow, look at that cutie! She’s adorable, has lovely legs and looks good in that dress”, is he lusting as long as he doesn’t start thinking “and I sure would like to do to her!”?

What if a guy knows someone and thinks to himself “Amy sure is something. She’s smart, bubbly, and sweet, haves an angelic voice, and she is cute and lovely.”? Would it be any different if one of the things he likes about Amy are her breasts (assuming they are not being immodestly displayed)?

Does dwelling on how a stranger’s looks (or those of someone familiar) equate lust in itself?
Lust ultimately is the desire and willful thoughts of doing the “X and Y”. You can recognize the beauty of a woman’s face and body without lusting after her. When that recognition turns toward wanting to explore different features of her body etc, it turns past recognition and switches to lusting after her. Easiest fix, recognize the beauty of the face more than the body. Isn’t always easy to do, but it’s not that hard either.
 
i would think that it would have to do with un-Christian actions, for instance if the woman or man was married, then it would be inappropriate to stare, or covet, especially if it was the wife/husband of another person. but if one simply glanced to admire the physical features of an attractive person, as long as one was not looking to covet, then i think this would be ok. remember that when God created Adam & Eve they were naked, so this was part of his will, to have persons living on the earth without clothing. of course after they sinned, things changed. hope this helps
 
Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis De Sales.
Part IV. Chapter III
CHAPTER III. Of Temptations, and the difference between experiencing them and consenting to them.
PICTURE to yourself a young princess beloved of her husband, to whom some evil wretch should send a messenger to tempt her to infidelity. First, the messenger would bring forth his propositions. Secondly, the princess would either accept or reject the overtures. Thirdly, she would consent to them or refuse them. Even so, when Satan, the world, and the flesh look upon a soul espoused to the Son of God, they set temptations and suggestions before that soul, whereby—1. Sin is proposed to it. 2. Which proposals are either pleasing or displeasing to the soul. 3. The soul either consents, or rejects them. In other words, the three downward
297
steps of temptation, delectation, and consent. And although the three steps may not always be so clearly defined as in this illustration, they are to be plainly traced in all great and serious sins.
If we should undergo the temptation to every sin whatsoever during our whole life, that would not damage us in the Sight of God’s Majesty, provided we took no pleasure in it, and did not consent to it; and that because in temptation we do not act, we only suffer, and inasmuch as we take no delight in it, we can be liable to no blame. S. Paul bore long time with temptations of the flesh, but so far from displeasing God thereby, He was glorified in them. The blessed Angela di Foligni underwent terrible carnal temptations, which move us to pity as we read of them. S. Francis and S. Benedict both experienced grievous temptations, so that the one cast himself amid thorns, the other into the snow, to quench them, but so far from losing anything of God’s Grace thereby, they greatly increased it.
Be then very courageous amid temptation, and never imagine yourself conquered so long as it is displeasing to you, ever bearing in mind the difference between experiencing and consenting to temptation, 181 —that difference being,
298
that whereas they may be experienced while most displeasing to us, we can never consent to them without taking pleasure in them, inasmuch as pleasure felt in a temptation is usually the first step towards consent. So let the enemies of our salvation spread as many snares and wiles in our way as they will, let them besiege the door of our heart perpetually, let them ply us with endless proposals to sin,—so long as we abide in our firm resolution to take no pleasure therein, we cannot offend God any more than the husband of the princess in my illustration could be displeased with her because of the overtures made to her, so long as she was in no way gratified by them. Of course, there is one great difference between my imaginary princess and the soul, namely, that the former has it in her power to drive away the messenger of evil and never hear him more, while the latter cannot always refuse to experience temptation, although it be always in its power to refuse consent. But how long soever the temptation may persist, it cannot harm us so long as it is unwelcome to us.
But again, as to the pleasure which may be taken in temptation (technically called delectation), inasmuch as our souls have two parts, one inferior, the other superior, and the inferior does not always choose to be led by the superior, but
299
takes its own line,—it not unfrequently happens that the inferior part takes pleasure in a temptation not only without consent from, but absolutely in contradiction to the superior will. It is this contest which S. Paul describes when he speaks of the “law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,” 182 and of the “flesh lusting against the spirit.” 183
Have you ever watched a great burning furnace heaped up with ashes? Look at it some ten or twelve hours afterwards, and there will scarce be any living fire there, or only a little smouldering in the very heart thereof. Nevertheless, if you can find that tiny lingering spark, it will suffice to rekindle the extinguished flames. So it is with love, which is the true spiritual life amid our greatest, most active temptations. Temptation, flinging its delectation into the inferior part of the soul, covers it wholly with ashes, and leaves but a little spark of God’s Love, which can be found nowhere save hidden far down in the heart or mind, and even that is hard to find. But nevertheless it is there, since however troubled we may have been in body and mind, we firmly resolved not to consent to sin or the temptation thereto, and that delectation of the exterior man was rejected by the interior spirit. Thus though our will may have been thoroughly
300
beset by the temptation, it was not conquered, and so we are certain that all such delectation was involuntary, and consequently not sinful.
 
The whole of this book (and may others) is avaialable to download view online, or buy here:
 
Here this will be a good start:

jimmyakin.com/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html

From Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers

(PS: when the questioner mentions the pleasure from seeing – I would say he is not referring to “sexual pleasure” (for one cannot consent to sexual pleasure in such situations-- such is part of lust) but simply that of seeing beauty (beauty pleases when one sees it)…though admittedly such is more difficult aspect due to the difference in seeing say a beautiful tree – and a beautiful woman! for concupiscence enters in there with the later in a rather particular way…Bl Pope John Paul II went into this in his pre-papal work Love and Responsibility)
 
Lust ultimately is the desire and willful thoughts of doing the “X and Y”. You can recognize the beauty of a woman’s face and body without lusting after her. When that recognition turns toward wanting to explore different features of her body etc, it turns past recognition and switches to lusting after her. Easiest fix, recognize the beauty of the face more than the body. Isn’t always easy to do, but it’s not that hard either.
Okay, so basically you’re saying that if one only thinks about those things that are normally exposed and not immodestly displayed (face, arms, hands, legs, feet, etc.) and doesn’t start to try and “mentally undress” or fantasise about those things which a woman would normally not leave uncovered, then is not lust? Also, if a man appreciates a woman’s face (which in my mind would be a must in order to find anything else attractive about her, even though he can recognise and appreciate the other things before the face if it is not immediately visible, such as when seeing someone from the back) and gives it equal or greater value than other physical attributes then it is not lust?
i would think that it would have to do with un-Christian actions, for instance if the woman or man was married, then it would be inappropriate to stare, or covet, especially if it was the wife/husband of another person.
Indeed. I understand how staring would be wrong in this case were she married. How do you draw the line of covetousness though if there is no staring? Is it “if she were not married, I’d want to marry her”? Is covetousness only related to wanting someone merely for sexual purposes? If a woman is very beautiful, sweet, kind, smart, etc. but married, is it wrong to think about how wonderful all those things are and say to one’s self “her husband is a lucky man, I’d want to be with her were she not married”?
but if one simply glanced to admire the physical features of an attractive person, as long as one was not looking to covet, then i think this would be ok. remember that when God created Adam & Eve they were naked, so this was part of his will, to have persons living on the earth without clothing. of course after they sinned, things changed. hope this helps
Hmm…again, so if someone knows a single woman, and he likes her – thinks she has a very pretty face and other lovely things about her physical self, and thinks she’s smart and sweet and kind etc. – and thinks “I’d like to be her boyfriend” yet doesn’t fantasise about the carnal, it’s okay? What if he thinks “I would like very much to kiss her”?
The whole of this book (and may others) is avaialable to download view online, or buy here:
So this is basically saying that the line is when you start to fantasise about the sexual, no? (I’m actually trying to read this very book, though I haven’t yet reached the section you are quoting. It is not exactly an easy read for me, I’m afraid.)
Here this will be a good start:

jimmyakin.com/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html

From Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers
Thanks, this is a good article:

“…] if he tries to instantly avert his eyes from every single pretty girl he sees then he will foster an anxiety about temptation that will actually feed the temptation he is seeking to minimize.”

It doesn’t completely answer all of my questions though, especially the new ones I’ve posted just above.
 
So this is basically saying that the line is when you start to fantasise about the sexual, no?
More to it than that. Though yes that is one line.

One can lust without “fantasy”. For example: such as looking in a lustful way… seeking to be aroused (a single person here is under discussion)…

But my post with Jimmy’s article will be of some help there in the post above --it may be good to read it a few times.

Now am I lusting cause I think some girl has a very beautiful face and I look at her face? No-- there need not be any sin in such admiring.

One has to also distinguish also between some temptation that happens to one --say out of the blue - and consenting to sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top