B
benjoy07
Guest
Joan P. – has your OP been resolved? It seems to me that it has been.
- Status
J
Joanp62
Guest
Somewhat, I’m trying to respond to those who wrote during the night and also today. God Bless,Joan P.
G
guanophore
Guest
Church Militant,
I know that temptation does not equal sin. However, the moment we even begin to consider giving in to it, leads to a possible occasion of sin and then possibly to the sin itself. I believe that Jesus being fully human, though perfect, and fully Divine, he would not have even considered it.
If He was not in a position to consider entering it, then I don’t think it would be considered a “real” temptation.
James 1:14-15
" but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." I think the luring and the enticing is part of tempation I think where Jesus prevailed was in the divine birth control!He never allowed any evil desire to be conceived in Himself. We can do likewise, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Joanp62;1953406:
On the contrary, this type of desire is noble!
S
seekerz
Guest
Beautiful post! If sex was created by God and is an integral part of the Sacrament of marriage, how can simply thinking about it be wrong? I think a big problem for many of us Catholics is mentioning sex and holiness in the same breath except if we’re discussing chastity.
J
JPrejean
Guest
It seems relatively clear to me that Scripture speaks of two kinds of temptations. The first kind is the one that St. James describes. As to that kind “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one” (Jas. 1:13). There is another sort in which God simply provides the occasion in which someone who had an evil disposition could sin (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 24:1, Gen. 22:1, Hebr. 4:15), which is sometimes translated as “tested.” This is when someone is demonstrated to have a virtuous heart by doing right where others might do wrong. Logically, God can do the latter and not the former. Since the former pertains to a disposition of the will and since Christ’s will cannot be disposed against the will of the Father (John 6:38), it logically follows that Jesus cannot be tempted in the former way.
I can see where you might intuitively think that such temptation could not be a “real” temptation, but it seems that rigorous analysis shows this gut feeling to be incorrect.
G
guanophore
Guest
How can it NOT be an occasion to sin? That is what a temptation is! He MUST have wrestled with it, why else would he be all night in Gethsemane laboring in prayer, sweating as if great drops of blood? He was tempted to do His own will, and preserve His life! The inclination to self preservation is part of what it is to be human. In choosing His father’s will over his own, he overcame temptation, and triumphed over the near occasion of sin. It is no different in quality than the temptation to eat when fasting, have sex when chaste, or vent wrath when angry. They are all natural human desires. When we think of sex somehow differently than the other human instincts, we fail to apply the same principles. The result you see is the rampant fornication in our society and even in our priesthood.
G
guanophore
Guest
Why do you say that the struggle itself is sin? When I read about Jesus in the Garden on the night of his arrest, I see great struggle!
G
guanophore
Guest
Sorry, JoanP. It was not my intention to frustrate you.
I read your post. I just did not agree with it!
G
guanophore
Guest
This is well said. It is an instinctual human reaction. Then there is a moral choice.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.
J
JPrejean
Guest
Thinking about it? Nothing. But there are some people who do not have the desire for it, and there is nothing wrong or defective about not having the desire either. For those called to marriage, there is a desire for marriage in its proper order. Thus, what could otherwise be an occasion for sin can be ordered to the good; someone who might otherwise be “aflame with passion” now has a proper ordering for his desires. But there are also those with no calling to marriage who may have the gift of not being afflicted with passion. There is nothing broken or missing in those people; it’s just a different set of gifts. Jesus had the gift of celibacy, but not everyone does, and this in its own way serves God’s order as well. See Matt. 19:1-12; 1 Cor. 7:1-10, 17. This is not a matter common to human nature, but something given to this or that individual in God’s good order, and we ought not pass judgment on anyone for the lack of a particular calling, lest we protest against the members of the Body of Christ. See 1 Cor. 12-13.
J
JPrejean
Guest
I answered this above. That’s not struggle; it is quite understandable dread over the means, which is a perfectly human reaction. On the other hand, you also said:
Desiring to have sex with someone who is beautiful or smells good is not an instinctual human reaction. One can appreciate someone’s beauty without sexual desire. Most of us have bad habits in that regard, which is why it’s impossible to go through life without even venial sin, but there are people who have this gift. I certainly don’t claim to be one of them, by the way!
G
guanophore
Guest
This would sure save a lot of us some trouble
I see your point, but also remember, “he emptied Himself, taking on the form of a man”. And, sadly brothers do have sexual attraction for their sisters, and fathers for their daughters. I agree that it is disordered, but it does happen!I think it is not related here, however. The question is, did Jesus embody the normal sexual experience of human beings?
I don’t know if it is true or not that Jesus had a sexual attraction for women. I think one of the problems in the Church is that we consider sexual attraction, in and of itself, offensive and impious. I don’t think God created it that way, and our tendency to think of sexual attraction as somehow sinful in and of itself has multiplied all sorts of sin and abuses.
B
benjoy07
Guest
removed because this was addressed in thread already.
J
Joanp62
Guest
Joanp62;1953406:
On the contrary, it would be considered a “real temptation”. Again, please see my post #27. I give 2 examples of 2 real examples of temptation and how we might handle it. As I’ve posited before, I think for Our Lord it would be the 1st example, when someone entices us with something and we outright refuse, they are still tempting us. When we are enticed and consider it in our mind ,would be another form of temptation where we interiorly considered it.
James 1:14-15
" but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." I think the luring and the enticing is part of tempation I think where Jesus prevailed was in the divine birth control!
Again, what James is saying in the quote above and your following comment is the same point I have been trying to make. Please *read *my posts . Or don’t. Whatever, I am tired. I’ll bring this up with my priest, he should be in a better position to explain it.
God Bless,
Joan P.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, this brings me to another problem I have been wrestling with. Does conscupiscience mean only disordered desire? I understand the translation to be strong, natural desire, and that it is often used for sexual desire. But is it, in and of itself, wrong? I agree that Jesus did not have disordered desire,but He DID have the desire spoken of in James, that can give birth to lust, and then to sin.
B
benjoy07
Guest
Good comment. How can that question be resolved?
J
Joanp62
Guest
I don’t think so. I thought concupiscience meant the tendency to sin in general. That because of the effects of Original Sin, we humans are going to be weak and prone to sin in a number of ways, not just sex or desire.
God Bless,
Joan P.
B
benjoy07
Guest
I would not say that is an instinctual human reaction, but the heart pounding can be, as in butterflies, a good feeling, etc. And that would be appreciating beauty without sexual desire.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, but I don;t think we were talking about inordinate desire. At least I was not. I was talking about the natural attraction between men and women.
I was not suggestion that He was burndened by any means, that is where I think JoanP and I had the misunderstanding. I don’t think it was a burden for him to cope with any of His natural human passions. He had desires of the flesh,a nd of the soul, because he was fully human. But, because his human will was in complete agreement with the Divine will, the passions were not a burden for Him. Neither should they be for us, as we bring our human wills into communion with His Divine will.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this is where we see it differently, JoanP. Yes, I think we can infer many things about the life of Jesus that are not recorded in scripture by looking at the customs of the time and the way families lived. It does not say that he ran and played with other children his age, either, but I bet He did when he was a child. I think He may have been encouraged to marry, if those around Him recognized what a good man he was. No one on this thread has ascribed to Him human “weakness” and especially lust, which is a sin. I think where we differ is that some of us think natural human sexual desire is a beautiful ability created to glorify God, and is neither a weakness, or lustful. I don’t think these desires are in any way contrary to God’s divine nature. In fact, “male and female created He them”. Our sexuality was intended to REFLECT God’s nature. However, I do agree that, for Jesus, marriage and a family was not consistent with the vocation to which He was called.
- Status