Enticed to lust?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I know there is no problem with nudity nor in attraction. But if you are looking at a nude or seminude picture. How do you know your not being enticed to lust. There seems to be a subtle difference in pornography that is always sin. And nudity which isn’t necessarily sin. I ask these silly questions because I care and don’t want to do wrong.
 
The artist and the pornographer are easily distinguished by the presence or absence of an impulse to masturbate.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The artist and the pornographer are easily distinguished by the presence or absence of an impulse to masturbate.
Click to expand...
But if you don’t masturbate s that the key thing? I’ve seen non-nude pics that…well I makes you wonder; if you’re being enticed or not by yourself or another that took the pic.
 
Deliberately looking at immodest pictures is a mortal sin.

Such as Pornography. Explicit scenes of intimacy in movies, nude pictures, etc…
 
MaryHelp777 said:
Deliberately looking at immodest pictures is a mortal sin.

Such as Pornography. Explicit scenes of intimacy in movies, nude pictures, etc…
Click to expand...
This is not properly formulated. In fact, the imagery in the Sistine Chapel is predominantly nude and looking upon them is not a mortal sin…neither for the newly elected pope, for the cardinals electing him, or for the countless people who visit the chapel on a daily basis.

I am at a loss as to how gazing upon Michelangelo’s David in the Uffizi could be declared a mortal sin even though he is unabashedly nude and anatomically correct. I have no doubt, sadly, there are people who sin in their hearts when looking at it…just as they can with any other thing they gaze upon. That, however, is a problem internal to such people.

The criteria is: is the response to be evoked an inappropriately sensual one or not. Doctors and nurses, after all, confront nudity every day and do so without sin.

As the original poster says, a person can be fully clothed and yet the photograph, painting, or the person in real life can elicit a more sensual response than any Michelangelo that is completely nude.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
This is not properly formulated. In fact, the imagery in the Sistine Chapel is predominantly nude and looking upon them is not a mortal sin…neither for the newly elected pope, for the cardinals electing him, or for the countless people who visit the chapel on a daily basis.

I am at a loss as to how gazing upon Michelangelo’s David in the Uffizi could be declared a mortal sin even though he is unabashedly nude and anatomically correct. I have no doubt, sadly, there are people who sin in their hearts when looking at it…just as they can with any other thing they gaze upon. That, however, is a problem internal to such people.

The criteria is: is the response to be evoked an inappropriately sensual one or not. Doctors and nurses, after all, confront nudity every day and do so without sin.

As the original poster says, a person can be fully clothed and yet the photograph, painting, or the person in real life can elicit a more sensual response than any Michelangelo that is completely nude.
Click to expand...
I have and sometimes do look at nudity. But if it begins to simulate you is the sin in masturbation, or continued looking? I have looked at nudity as admiration. We are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. And that in and of itself isn’t sin. Being tempted isn’t sin is it? Putting oneself in jeopardy intentionally that might be a different matter.
 
Well,
The paintings and statues in Rome are of saints.

Someone going off and watching Pornography or nude magazines, or rude films, would be committing the sin of lust. Which breaks the 6th commandment.
 
Don’t look at pornography or nudity you won’t have to figure out which is which.

It is called guarding your eyes.

-Tim-
 
I do not have a problem with a nudity or sensual art. I enjoy it. I do not think it is sinful.
 
CRATUS said:
I do not have a problem with a nudity or sensual art. I enjoy it. I do not think it is sinful.
Click to expand...
This thread is somewhat confusing. There have been a lot of citations from CCC . I too don’t want to look at porn but bathing suit models there’s certainly nothing wrong with that IMO. Now some poses and nudity might be pushing it. :hmmm:
 
billcu1 said:
This thread is somewhat confusing. There have been a lot of citations from CCC . I too don’t want to look at porn but bathing suit models there’s certainly nothing wrong with that IMO. Now some poses and nudity might be pushing it. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
seeing nudity at some points has to be wrong under natural law. Kind of like two men together. Well they say they’re different and like each other other than the opposite sex. They know they’re wrong. And are held accountable. You don’t have to be told about that. I feel no guilt looking at say a bathing suit. Am I wrong here ? I get tired of confessions and sin.
 
When I look at sensual art, it is not like real people - they are drawings. Some of them are photographs of people having sex. Maybe I am little desensitized to nudity. I am not “turned on” so much by pictures - but seeing people actually have sex will turn me on.
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354082

There’s nothing sinful about the human form in itself, nor is there about art that depicts the human form. Art differs from pornography (defined by the Catechism as “removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties”), however, which is designed to entice to lust. You can give yourself the benefit of the doubt in assessing your actions; you may want to talk to a priest if you are having difficulty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top