P
prstoessel
Guest
To further my discernment on acts of lust, I have been looking at this definition in a previous thread:
Looking at it closer:
However, in reading the rest of the definition, parameters are set to provide the criteria:
“Not sought for itself” would seem to address the intent of initiation of sexual activity. Provided that the intent is of pure mind and heart and not rooted in selfishness, I would say that this could extend to sexual acts outside of normal intercourse, for even normal intercourse is subject to an improper or disordered intent. Even if the act itself is procreative, it may not necessarily be unified in a spiritual sense.
Is it “disordered” to desire and engage in sexual acts outside of normal intercourse? If so, then are there acts within the context of normal intercourse that are also considered disordered? Various positions in sexual intercourse, for example, may not properly keep the unitive aspects of the act in the full dignity that it requires. The things that we say to each other during the act may also contribute to whether or not the act is disordered.
I find myself now in a worse position than when I started. A simple case of “paralysis by analysis”. It has taken over my thought processes so much, that I have a hard time thinking about anything else in my free time. Now THAT, is disordered…
I, therefore, am thinking that this is indeed a matter left to the conscience of the couple, as far as culpability of sin is concerned. Whether the acts outside of normal intercourse are indeed “disordered” and “intrinsically evil” is not settled with me.
The truth, however, is the truth. There is no changing that. Our understanding of truth, however, is what evolves over time. This can only happen if one is open to admitting that he/she is wrong and continues to discern and pray for understanding. I will certainly keep doing that.
Having normal marital intercourse intentionally during times of infertility - regardless of the reason - would also seem to fit into this category. Doing so is not procreative. In fact, it’s the opposite. I have read “… anything non-procreative is, by definition, intrinsically evil.” But I hardly think that is what was intended in that particular definition.
Looking at it closer:
I would like to know exactly why certain acts (such as OS) would be used as a means of defining this teaching. It would seem that the intent is what is of significance here.
However, in reading the rest of the definition, parameters are set to provide the criteria:
It does not say “and/or” in this definition. I think that is significant. Both must be present in order to fulfill the definition of being lust. So if we take away the “procreative purposes” aspect of a sexual relationship because the couple no longer desires to achieve pregnancy (for a good moral reason), we are left with dealing with whether a sexual act is unified, as well as not sought for itself in a disordered manner.
“Not sought for itself” would seem to address the intent of initiation of sexual activity. Provided that the intent is of pure mind and heart and not rooted in selfishness, I would say that this could extend to sexual acts outside of normal intercourse, for even normal intercourse is subject to an improper or disordered intent. Even if the act itself is procreative, it may not necessarily be unified in a spiritual sense.
Is it “disordered” to desire and engage in sexual acts outside of normal intercourse? If so, then are there acts within the context of normal intercourse that are also considered disordered? Various positions in sexual intercourse, for example, may not properly keep the unitive aspects of the act in the full dignity that it requires. The things that we say to each other during the act may also contribute to whether or not the act is disordered.
I find myself now in a worse position than when I started. A simple case of “paralysis by analysis”. It has taken over my thought processes so much, that I have a hard time thinking about anything else in my free time. Now THAT, is disordered…
I, therefore, am thinking that this is indeed a matter left to the conscience of the couple, as far as culpability of sin is concerned. Whether the acts outside of normal intercourse are indeed “disordered” and “intrinsically evil” is not settled with me.
The truth, however, is the truth. There is no changing that. Our understanding of truth, however, is what evolves over time. This can only happen if one is open to admitting that he/she is wrong and continues to discern and pray for understanding. I will certainly keep doing that.