Did Jesus think about sex?

[Joanp62]

And God bless you as well. Just for clarification, are you explaining your point or disagreeing with something I said?

Ok, I found it. Yes, I was explaining my point. I was agreeing with your post. Do you disagree with what I said in my post, and if so what is it?

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

This is complete error and neither taught by the church or by the Bible.

If you can document it as being dogma then I’ll recant, but it’s not there, so I have no fear of that.

Being a perfect human being in no way precludes the temptations that all of us face as humans and the Word of God is quite clear on this, as I have already shown.

You err in equating temptation with sin…they are not the same at all at all.

I believe that scrupulosity is also considered a sin is it not?

I just realized that I never responded to this post. Your quote above is in response to my post #19. Please explain where what I said was in “complete error” with Scripture and Church Teaching? I believe I asked you earlier if you could show me where the Church specifically explains what is meant by “was tempted”–does it mean that he was exposed to temptation and rejected it, OR that he also would have entertained the thought of giving in to it. It is the latter that to me, sounds contrary to Scripture and Church Teaching.Joan P.

 

[benjoy07]

I read most of this thread and formed my opinion.

Jesus is perfect. The question seems to be what “being tempted” means.
(Bear with me) To me, if I try to tempt you, then you are “being” tempted by me. Picture a boy tempting a girl with candy, while the girl looks away in disgust. One could say that she is being tempted by the boy. So, in that sense, you are being tempted. It doesn’t necessarly mean you are considering the temptation, but you are aware of the temptation that is presented before you.
By just the awareness of the temptation before you (in this case a beautiful person), a physical human reaction of heart pounding can occur, as in the example that smelling a delicious treat may cause your stomach to grumble or your mouth to salivate, because your human physical senses are created to respond that way–involuntarily. So if the priest in your OP, said Jesus’ heart may have pounded and his head turned, I see that his head turned because he was aware of the temptation and did not ignore it or else He would not know of the temptations we face; his heart pounded as an involuntary human physical reaction to the senses. So in my perception, your priest was OK in saying what was said, but to your arugument, could cause confusion in one’s faith.

 

[benjoy07]

Not to add more confusion, I know it’s written that even to look at someone **with lust **is considered adultery. But as someone stated somewhere in this thread, Lust is a voluntary action–a moral choice. But different than just observing something. I cannot deny what I think is beautiful or smells good, even if I wanted to. My physical body would have a reaction, without my consent . To Lust is sin.

 

[Joanp62]

I read most of this thread and formed my opinion.

Jesus is perfect. The question seems to be what “being tempted” means.
(Bear with me) To me, if I try to tempt you, then you are “being” tempted by me. Picture a boy tempting a girl with candy, while the girl looks away in disgust. One could say that she is being tempted by the boy. So, in that sense, you are being tempted. It doesn’t necessarly mean you are considering the temptation, but you are aware of the temptation that is presented before you.
By just the awareness of the temptation before you (in this case a beautiful person), a physical human reaction of heart pounding can occur, as in the example that smelling a delicious treat may cause your stomach to grumble or your mouth to salivate, because your human physical senses are created to respond that way–involuntarily. So if the priest in your OP, said Jesus’ heart may have pounded and his head turned, I see that his head turned because he was aware of the temptation and did not ignore it or else He would not know of the temptations we face; his heart pounded as an involuntary human physical reaction to the senses. So in my perception, your priest was OK in saying what was said, but to your arugument, could cause confusion in one’s faith.

Hi Benjoy,
In regard to your first paragraph, I have been trying to convey the same thing, but in different words. See my post 27.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Last month, in discussing Our Lord’s humanity, a priest giving a sermon said that Jesus thought about sex; and later, also on the same subject, a different priest said that if Jesus had seen a beautiful woman, “his head would have turned and his heart must have pounded faster.”

I wish priests would stick to teaching doctrine in their homilies and leave their speculative opinions to other settings.

I think of it this way…Jesus was my creator, and is my brother. Can the creator have sexual feelings for his offspring? Can a brother have sexual attraction to his own sister? As a father of a teenage daughter, I know for a fact that no matter how beautiful my daughter is, I am not even remotely wired to see her in any other way than my little baby girl, having no sexual attraction toward her whatsoever. Just because I am a man doesn’t mean that I must, of necessity, be sexually attracted to pretty girls.

The priest’s thesis seems to be built upon the opinion that since Jesu was a man, he must have been sexually attracted to his creative offspring and his pretty siblings. I find such a notion impious and offensive to say the least, ill suited to any homily, and if he were my priest, he would have received pretty critical feedback from me and every other person I could convince to agree with me.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What does the New Testament teach us?

It doesn’t teach us that Jesus was afflicted with conscupiscience (disordered desire), which I would think would be necessary for him to have sexual attraction to his creative offspring and sisters.

 

[Joanp62]

I wish priests would stick to teaching doctrine in their homilies and leave their speculative opinions to other settings.

I think of it this way…Jesus was my creator, and is my brother. Can the creator have sexual feelings for his offspring? Can a brother have sexual attraction to his own sister? As a father of a teenage daughter, I know for a fact that no matter how beautiful my daughter is, I am not even remotely wired to see her in any other way than my little baby girl, having no sexual attraction toward her whatsoever. Just because I am a man doesn’t mean that I must, of necessity, be sexually attracted to pretty girls.

The priest’s thesis seems to be built upon the opinion that since Jesu was a man, he must have been sexually attracted to his creative offspring and his pretty siblings. I find such a notion impious and offensive to say the least, ill suited to any homily, and if he were my priest, he would have received pretty critical feedback from me and every other person I could convince to agree with me.

Dave,
I agree with you 100%.
God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

It doesn’t teach us that Jesus was afflicted with conscupiscience (disordered desire), which I would think would be necessary for him to have sexual attraction to his creative offspring and sisters.

Dave,
That’s exactly right. Church Militant claims it’s in the New Testament, but it doesnt say our Lord had concupiesence (sp) or would have considered for a moment giving in to any temptation that came his way. Thank you.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus being tempted briefly to save his life and not die on the cross, to me is not an occasion of sin or a sin. It is not the same as sexual temptation, which I believe the priests I mentioned in my OP were implying. Also, immediately after asking the Father to take this cup from him, he says, Not my will be done, but yours.

God Bless,
Joan P.

Briefly tempted? Wasn’t he praying in the Garden ALL NIGHT? Didn’t he have to repeat the same prayer a NUMBER of times as the temptation returned and had to be fought again and again? And yes he ended his prayer, as many of us do, by finally resigning himself to God’s will, but certainly not without violent struggle - to the point where his internal agonies caused him to sweat blood and he needed angels to comfort him and strengthen his resolve.

We’re talking very serious temptation here, not just a brief passing thought.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

"Mary, like Christ himself, was subject to the general human defects, in so far as these involve no moral imperfection. Concupiscence cannot be reckoned among these since it excites a person to commit acts which are materially contrary to God’s Law, even where, through lack of assent, they are not formal sins. It would be incompatible with Mary’s fullness of grace and her perfect purity and immaculate state to be subject to motions of inordinate desire" (pg 202)

By virtue of the perfect hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity with Divine nature, it was impossible for him to be subject to motions of inordinate desire.

Dr. Ott continues…

**“In Christ’s conception, concupiscence was completely removed, so that the power of the senses were completly subject to the direction of reason [St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, **III, 27, 3]”

(p. 203)
When speaking of Christ’s freedom from original sin, Dr. Ott furthermore states:

“**From freedom from original sin there flows the freedom from concupiscence…Christ’s sensual nature was, therefore, completely subordinate to the direction of reason”
**

Finally, from the Fifth General Council of Constantinople (AD 553), the Catholic Church rejected the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, that Christ "was burdened with the passion of the soul and with the desires of the flesh" (D 224)

Hmmmm… seems such an impious opinion was already condemned in the 6th century.

 

[benjoy07]

I think of it this way…Jesus was my creator, and is my brother. Can the creator have sexual feelings for his offspring? Can a brother have sexual attraction to his own sister? As a father of a teenage daughter, I know for a fact that no matter how beautiful my daughter is, I am not even remotely wired to see her in any other way than my little baby girl, having no sexual attraction toward her whatsoever. Just because I am a man doesn’t mean that I must, of necessity, be sexually attracted to pretty girls.

Dave, good point. Very good point. If one takes that position, then the whole heart pounding and head turning make no sense. And, the whole idea that a pretty woman was even a temptation to Him makes no sense.

 

[LilyM]

When speaking of Christ’s freedom from original sin, Dr. Ott furthermore states:
Finally, from the Fifth General Council of Constantinople (ad 553), the Catholic Church rejected the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, that Christ "was burdened with the passion of the soul and with the desires of the flesh" (D 224)

If it’s dogma in regard to Christ then I guess I must, in obedience, accept it.

I find it much less plausible in regard to Mary, with all respect to Dr Ott. She was fully human and NOT divine. She was in the same state as Adam and Eve in the Garden. Certainly subject to serious temptation as they were, and certainly every bit as capable of sinning (it might not amount to ‘concupiscence’ but it sounds awfully close) as they were.

 

[Joanp62]

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
By virtue of the perfect hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity with Divine nature, it was impossible for him to be subject to motions of inordinate desire.

Dr. Ott continues…
When speaking of Christ’s freedom from original sin, Dr. Ott furthermore states:
Finally, from the Fifth General Council of Constantinople (AD 553), the Catholic Church rejected the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, that Christ "was burdened with the passion of the soul and with the desires of the flesh" (D 224)

Hmmmm… seems such an impious opinion was already condemned in the 6th century.

Well, this certainly backs up what I’ve been trying to say, only they say it better.

Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

Briefly tempted? Wasn’t he praying in the Garden ALL NIGHT? Didn’t he have to repeat the same prayer a NUMBER of times as the temptation returned and had to be fought again and again? And yes he ended his prayer, as many of us do, by finally resigning himself to God’s will, but certainly not without violent struggle - to the point where his internal agonies caused him to sweat blood and he needed angels to comfort him and strengthen his resolve.

We’re talking very serious temptation here, not just a brief passing thought.

Relax Lily, I was reading Luke which only mentions ONE TIME. In Matthew and Mark it does mention it was THREE times. That still doesn’t make it a sin that our Lord considered backing out of his imminent suffering and death. As far as his agonies and anxiety, it was once explained to me by a priest that Jesus was seeing all the sins of all mankind before him, the sins that He would be taking on, which caused him this agony. But I’m not sure if that is correct or not.God Bless,Joan P.

 

[cheddarsox]

It seems perfectly plausible to me that Jesus might, at some point considered that it might be nice to marry, enjoy the company of a wife and be a father. It is almost bizarre to think that he never even thought about those things in the whole of his life, the things that were considered completely good, right and normal for a Jewish man of his time. Those are perfectly OK things to think and consider, even for the Son of God.

I have always been puzzled that people seem to feel a need to make Jesus “more” than he has been presented to us. People go on about how poor he must have been, and how awful to have been born in a stable (as opposed to a crowded inn…hmm…I’ve given birth and I think God did Mary a favor by providing the privacy of the stable), and that he must never have done this or that…perfectly normal, moral thing. The point of the incarnation was that God became fully man, and ever since man seems to have been knocking himself out to make Christ as “not human” as possible, sort of shoving God’s gift back at Him…Maybe we want God too safely distant in heaven, vastly different from us, we don’t seem to want a God who is quite that up close and personal.

Part of the difficulty of faith is believing that Christ was FULLY human. And that includes, for people with normal healthy bodies who go through adolescence, to, at some point experience desire, and think about sex. Desire to be close, to experience that particular gift of God, to have the joy of marriage and a family. None of those thoughts are sinful. They do not automatically =lust.

 

[JPrejean]

And yes he ended his prayer, as many of us do, by finally resigning himself to God’s will, but certainly not without violent struggle - to the point where his internal agonies caused him to sweat blood and he needed angels to comfort him and strengthen his resolve.

We need to clarify something here. That doesn’t show struggle between the divine and human wills; it shows just how profound the misery is of dying when one truly does not want to do so. Make no mistake: Christ truly did not want to die. Even if you can see the purpose of dying, it isn’t something that anyone wants to do, and if there is any way around it, you would be relieved. Consider the following passage from Scripture:

John 21[RSV]
[18] Truly, truly, I say to you (Peter), when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go."
[19] (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

St. Peter’s will not to die was in no way contrary to the Lord’s will; He knows that Peter will not desire death even if it ultimately glorifies God. One might view it as willing the ends and not the means; neither Christ nor Peter would kill himself even though both of them were subject to death by others. Each will genuinely want to live even if he also genuinely wants the other good resulting from his death (shown by Peter’s decision to follow Christ even unto his own death), but it is in the nature of humanity to be subject to some things beyond our control. That’s an important part of Catholic moral theology that justifies the doctrine of “double effect;” there are some goals that simply can’t be gained without undesired side effects of the means. That’s true of Christ as well as any human being.

 

[Joanp62]

It seems perfectly plausible to me that Jesus might, at some point considered that it might be nice to marry, enjoy the company of a wife and be a father. It is almost bizarre to think that he never even thought about those things in the whole of his life, the things that were considered completely good, right and normal for a Jewish man of his time. Those are perfectly OK things to think and consider, even for the Son of God.

I have always been puzzled that people seem to feel a need to make Jesus “more” than he has been presented to us. People go on about how poor he must have been, and how awful to have been born in a stable (as opposed to a crowded inn…hmm…I’ve given birth and I think God did Mary a favor by providing the privacy of the stable), and that he must never have done this or that…perfectly normal, moral thing. The point of the incarnation was that God became fully man, and ever since man seems to have been knocking himself out to make Christ as “not human” as possible, sort of shoving God’s gift back at Him…Maybe we want God too safely distant in heaven, vastly different from us, we don’t seem to want a God who is quite that up close and personal.

Part of the difficulty of faith is believing that Christ was FULLY human. And that includes, for people with normal healthy bodies who go through adolescence, to, at some point experience desire, and think about sex. Desire to be close, to experience that particular gift of God, to have the joy of marriage and a family. None of those thoughts are sinful. They do not automatically =lust.

Well, to me, it seems that people are making more of the Jesus that is presented to us in scriptures when they attribute to Him our human weaknesses, such as lust, etc. which is not evident from scripture. Also, desiring a spouse and family is very good, just not necessary for Jesus, because that would have, imo, been at odds with his divine nature.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think part of the problem is that people tend to have an incorrect view of what temptation is.

According to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

TEMPTATION. Solicitation to sin, whether by persuasion or offering some pleasure. It may arise from the world, the flesh, or the devil. Temptation from the world is the attractiveness of bad example and the psychological pressure to conform. Temptations from the flesh are all the urges of concupiscence, whether carnal or spiritual, where man’s fallen nature has built-in tendencies to the seven capital sins. Demonic temptations arise from instigations of the evil spirit, whose method is to encourage every form of avarice or selfishness, in order to lead one to pride, and through pride to all other sins.
[Pocket Catholic Dictionary]

Thus, it it is Catholic doctrine that Jesus was tempted, meaning he was indeed solicited to sin, but he was solicited from without, not from within. Those afflicted with concupiscence are afflicted within and without.

 

[Joanp62]

I think part of the problem is that people tend to have an incorrect view of what temptation is.

According to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

Thus, it it is Catholic doctrine that Jesus was tempted, meaning he was indeed solicited to sin, but he was solicited from without, not from within. Those afflicted with concupiscence are afflicted within and without.

So as I’ve been trying to say: Satan solicited our Lord from withhout. He tempted Jesus, BUT, Jesus would not have been afflicted with even considering Satan’s offers.

Joan P.