Hating Sexuality

[Mark86]

“A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good.”

This is all well and good, but what’s he’s talking about in the end is “procreation.” On that point, I can agree. Procreation is a good thing. Nowhere here does he talk about “sexual attraction” in and of ITSELF. Procreation can happen regardless of whether two human beings are physically attracted to each other. It does not require physical, sexual attraction in the parties in order to join egg and sperm, all it takes is the joining of egg and sperm. It’s a biological, mechanical process. The whole thrust here hinges on whether or not we equate “sexual attraction” with the “great good” of species preservation. It’s hard to argue with Aquinas’s reasoning when it comes to a procreation, but procreation can exist apart from sexual attraction, and sexual attraction apart from procreation (thus, I don’t desire to procreate with everyone my senses inform me that I’m attracted to). If I don’t desire to procreate with everyone my senses inform me that I’m attracted to, then by these terms, I must be committing “lust” because I have ignored utilizing the desire to its proper end (procreation). Thus every time I pass a billboard and admit that I find that “her” attractive, if I don’t desire to carry her off in marriage and bring the desire to completion with that particular woman, I must be “disregarding the end to which the desire is designed for” …ie. committing lust. This seems true especially given Aquinas’s reasoning, since there doesn’t seem any reasonable comparison between the benefits of “procreation” and the non-benefits of being attracted to people I don’t desire to have sex with. Procreation perpetuates the species, and so it is a “great good.” What good does merely being attracted to someone else do to make it comparable to procreation as a “good” in and of itself? Nothing I can see.

So, the sin of Lust is not that it is a sexual act, or that it is pleasurable, but that it is done or desired in a fashion that is contrary to reason.

I’m with you on the sin of lust not being in the sexual act or “accident” of pleasure that it produces. The problem I have with this is how it’s possible to “desire it” without falling into lust if lust by its very definition involves the desire for sexual pleasure. How do you “desire rightly” something that (apart from its end in procreation) has no rightful end? Sexual attraction is nothing but the desire in question. In keeping with God’s law or not, if one is sexually attracted to another human being, that person is “desiring” the other person’s body on some level apart from the marital act itself. It seems the only way is to strictly NOT desire the other person physically. At that point, you’re not desiring them, so you’re not committing lust. If you are desiring them, then you are committing lust.

In the same fashion desiring food to satisfy your bodily needs is no sin whatever as long as it sought in accord with right reason. Now, we would stray into Gluttony if we were to eat simply for the desire for food, or be so picky about our food that it must be a certain way, or if we eat to excessive levels contrary to reason.

Except that eating food on some level is necessary for self preservation. Procreation is not necessary for self preservation, so it is unlike consumption. At the same time, consumption is necessary whether it is desired or not, whether it is enjoyable or not. The same ought to be true about marital relations then, in which case, in the marital relation, it becomes necessary whether desired or not, whether enjoyed or not. Desire and enjoyment are the unnecessary element no matter how you slice it in either case, and unnecessary elements that do not (in and of themselves) have a higher “end.” There is nothing gained by the body if it “enjoys” a meal, because when it “enjoys” it or not, whether it “desires” it or not, it will benefit from its nutrients. The same ought to be true about marital relations. There is nothing gained if the spouses “enjoy” intercourse, because egg and sperm will still meet up (if the conditions are right). Therefore, “enjoyment” and “desire” are useless and unproductive ends in and of themselves, adding nothing, and so their elimination takes away nothing from the “higher purpose” of the activity. Attention to the higher purpose negates the need for the existence of the lower passions.

 

[Mark86]

What is this ‘it’ that I have to show you where ‘it’ says?

The “it” is the statement “Sexual attraction is a good in and of itself because… ???” I can’t even fathom what the rest of the statement would include because I still can’t fathom a reason why I should believe “sexual attraction” is good (in and of itself). Saying procreation is good in and of itself makes sense. Saying the unity of the spouses is good in and of itself makes sense. But saying “I am attracted to this person” does not seem to add any benefit in and of itself.

Again, I do not mean that the disordered desire is good (the desire for unlawful sexual satisfaction), but that the desire itself if it be in accord with reason is not sinful, in-fact it is good (in so far as it is in accord with God’s design).

What benefit does the “desire itself” give? The desire itself is not the act itself. It is just the desire. What does merely having the desire itself, apart from the act, benefit anyone?

Again, I believe you are talking about ‘concupiscence’ here – the disordered desire for unlawful sexual gratification. And, yes, this is evil (and a sin if indulged in), but it should not be mistaken for lawful sexual or physical attraction. Not all sex is wrong, not all attraction or desire is wrong.

So if one desires “lawful sexual gratification” then it’s not concupiscence? Does that mean (as a man) I can desire sex with a future wife and not be committing lust? I seriously doubt that. We’re all familiar with Matthew 5:28. Christ specifically says “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Christ is condemning the heart. If a man (for example) desires that which is NOT his “wife” (since they are not married yet), and desires her before marriage in that way, that would constitute “adultery” by these terms, and adultery is outside of right reason and God’s law, and sexual desire outside of right reason and God’s law is called concupiscence, and concupiscence is the main ingredient in the “lust in the heart.” Therefore, I conclude that such a “desiring” of someone before marriage IS lust. If that be the case, then it’s no accident that Christ’s words in 5:29 follow what to do with these “desires” in a very bodily manner: “if your right arm offends you, cut if off…etc.” That doesn’t sound like “manage the offense” … that sounds like, “yes, even though it’s a part of you, dispose of it!” Christ isn’t making concessions toward sexual desire before marriage. He’s telling us to “cut it off” completely and perhaps even painfully, no matter how “attached” it is to our bodily makeup.

He did say “Be fruitful and multiply” because that was one of the positive commands to our first parents. In addition to this, I would note that he did not say ‘do not be sexually attracted to each other’ either. So, your conclusion does not follow.

He said it in Matthew 5:28-29, effectively.

The sexual desire, in accord with reason, is ordered to a particular end (procreation and unification of spouses) in the same way that experiencing pleasure in eating food is no sin, because it is experienced and desired in a rightly ordered relationship (for the fulfillment of the bodily needs). Pleasure is not sin, the love of pleasure which displaces God, or God’s Law, that is sin.

When you get hungry, you eat and give your body nutrients and the result is the hunger decreases. What do you do when you feel aroused? Do you run out, find a wife, get married, run home with her, and have sex in order to decrease the desire for sex? Of course not! You don’t treat the sexual longing the same as the longing for food! So I don’t see how you can continue to compare them. The desire for food finds its purpose met when you eat. The desire for sex does NOT find its purpose met simply by having sex. If that was the case then we ought to treat sex as though it were a meal to satiate an appetite rather than to procreate. This is a very important difference that so many ignore both inside the Church and outside. Outside the Church, it’s regarded as a bodily function. Inside the Church though, there is a complete inability to recognize that a person does indeed have desires BEFORE marriage that can not lawfully be carried out and so intrinsically lead the person only toward sin (as even Christ himself said). The Church, continuing to insist upon the “goodness” of the desires though makes this issue confusing, and many are left scratching their heads trying to figure out how a “desire” that ONLY leads to sin can be “good” for them even BEFORE marriage. It’s like, the Church only views sexual longing as existing in a person after marriage has been undertaken, and looks at the whole situation from a lens of “after-marriage.” After marriage, it is very right to call it “good,” since after marriage it has at least a proper context. Before marriage, it has NO proper context, and therefore ISN’T “good.”

No, you are to conquer your ‘crippling loneliness,’ if that means some struggle to achieve that then so be it;

How does one conquer it?

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

I am out on the job right now, but I will ruminate on what you have written and prepare my response tomorrow if I can.

Be at peace.

 

[truetofaith]

I still don’t understand what use sexuality has outside the bounds of marriage. Since I am not married, I have no use for it at all.

Sexuality is what initially attracts you to someone, so you will marry.

 

[Mark86]

Sexuality is what initially attracts you to someone, so you will marry.

That initial attraction is lust (since the person it’s directed at is not technically your spouse), no matter how you shake it, and lust is sinful.

Also, I don’t see why “sexuality” must be the cause of the initial attraction. What if you meet someone and you’re attracted to their personality? It doesn’t have to always be this paradigm of shallowness in the beginning. Why must we continue to think in terms of “eros first, agape second” … why not just skip eros completely and move straight to agape? At every stage, eros is unnecessary and hazardous to spiritual growth.

I can’t think of one thing good about eros.

 

[truetofaith]

That initial attraction is lust (since the person it’s directed at is not technically your spouse), no matter how you shake it, and lust is sinful.

Also, I don’t see why “sexuality” must be the cause of the initial attraction. What if you meet someone and you’re attracted to their personality? It doesn’t have to always be this paradigm of shallowness in the beginning. Why must we continue to think in terms of “eros first, agape second” … why not just skip eros completely and move straight to agape? At every stage, eros is unnecessary and hazardous to spiritual growth.

It’s not always “lust.” It’s the attraction of a man & a woman…smile, same interests, fun together…probably gays have that attraction, also.

 

[Mark86]

It’s not always “lust.” It’s the attraction of a man & a woman…smile, same interests, fun together…probably gays have that attraction, also.

Exactly. I wouldn’t count that as sexuality though, if two are hanging out just because they enjoy their time together. That would be a friendship kind of love that may blossom into an agape love, but it wouldn’t be eros or “sexual attraction.”

I still can’t see how sexual attraction or eros can exist without sin in an unmarried person, or even a married person for that matter.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

Pulvisetcinis, first of all thank you for the time you’ve put into trying to cure my ignorance by your very thoughtful and well-reasoned posts. There are a few matters that I wish to clarify and few points of disagreement that I still, not so much on theological issues as on practical or pastoral ones. There’s much in your post that I agree with, but I suppose there’s a difference of opinion here on a few very crucial points and I wonder which actually makes the most practical sense.

No problem, whatever I can do to help.

Let me ask then a practical question… If I see someone my senses are sexually attracted to, have I committed lust, have I “sought the pleasure alone, disregarding the end for which [my desire] was designed for?” or have I “desired to utilize [my desire] for its rightful purpose?” Does this mean it’s not sinful for me to suggest that someone is attractive or to admit to myself that I find them attractive (even though I have no intention to run out and marry them)? Does God indeed permit us to respect the beauty in other human beings? If so, to me that sounds like he’d be permitting us to “seek the pleasure alone” by expressly disregarding the end for which [the desire] was designed. I say that because I’ve seen many attractive members of our species, and I’ve found them attractive, but I don’t desire sexual relations with them. Is that lust? By not desiring to have sex with the person I’m attracted to, have I “disregarded the end to which the desire was designed for”? Basically, if I haven’t desired to have sex with the person I find attractive, have I engaged in a disordered act (by your definition)?

Okay, first I need to say that I am not a priest and I have no authority whatever to teach. So, some of these points should be brought up to a faithful orthodox priest. But, I will venture an answer as far as I understand the points.

No, it is not lust to see someone and find physical aspects of that person appealing – as an attribute of that person. It is lust when you use that person as an object of your carnal desires as if they were a piece of meat, which destroys their dignity as a child of God. If you entertain impure thoughts about that person or imagine doing things with that person, it would be lust. But, simply saying ‘she has pretty eyes’ or acknowledging that she is pretty or that you find her attractive is not a sin (though it could be an occasion of sin). You start to ‘utilize your desire’ when you start desiring to have sexual relations with that person think about them in such a way that they are becoming an object of your carnal desires.

Lust by definition is a “The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.” Simply saying that someone is pretty, or thinking them attractive in a physical way, is not lusting unless you are doing it in a fashion that is for the ‘inordinate craving for… carnal pleasure’

What form of desire then would they have experienced? What form of pleasure would they have experienced?

Of course, it is speculation as to how it would have ‘felt’ for them. But, I believe that we can say that whatever it was, it would be in complete subjection to reason. In other words, it would not present itself as a temptation to do something unlawful.

Basically, I have trouble believing there is any pleasure or desire contained in the flesh apart from concupiscence. Outside of concupiscence is paradise found where no distinction can be made.

You should be careful with this sort of thinking, because it boarders on several heretical positions and is based on a flawed understanding of human nature.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

In my mind, the kinds of experiences that Adam and Eve would’ve had would’ve been devoid of such fleshly accidents as “pleasure” and “pain.” What would they have “enjoyed” if they had no concept of suffering or duress? They could make no such distinction, and so they would’ve felt nothing but the perfectly ordered reason for their complimentarity. Their “feelings” on the matter would’ve been more like “this works” rather than “this is enjoyable.”

Adam and Eve were not divine. They were fully human in every way; they were created as fleshy beings with ‘fleshy’ powers. They just did not suffer from concupiscence – unlawful desire – because they were in a state of Original Justice; i.e. they had not lost the preternatural gifts by which their appetites were ordered and in subjection to their reason and will.

You must realize that the appetites are part of the created order of our nature; having them is part of what it means to be human and not to have them would mean that you are not a human being. It is not like the Fall ‘generated’ these extra faculties of human nature, they were all there to begin with, as part of our nature. The Fall, through Original Sin, destroyed Adam’s Original Justice and wounded his nature (which he passed on to us), the result of this is that the powers were disordered, not that new ones were created.

Here is what St. Thomas says about this:

“I answer that, The passions of the soul are in the sensual appetite, the object of which is good and evil. Wherefore some passions of the soul are directed to what is good, as love and joy; others to what is evil, as fear and sorrow. And since in the primitive state, evil was neither present nor imminent, nor was any good wanting which a good-will could desire to have then, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10), therefore Adam had no passion with evil as its object; such as fear, sorrow, and the like; neither had he passions in respect of good not possessed, but to be possessed then, as burning concupiscence. But those passions which regard present good, as joy and love; or which regard future good to be had at the proper time, as desire and hope that casteth not down, existed in the state of innocence; otherwise, however, than as they exist in ourselves. For our sensual appetite, wherein the passions reside, is not entirely subject to reason; hence at times our passions forestall and hinder reason’s judgment; at other times they follow reason’s judgment, accordingly as the sensual appetite obeys reason to some extent. But in the state of innocence the inferior appetite was wholly subject to reason: so that in that state the passions of the soul existed only as consequent upon the judgment of reason.”

So, “the inferior appetite was wholly subject to reason” not that they didn’t have this appetite.

In Pope St. John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” lectures he downplayed the significance of “physical attraction” in the discernment of marriage, and for very good reason, in my opinion. He emphasized instead the importance of interpersonal commitment over feelings of the flesh and how “eros” can only find its fullest expression in the context of “agape.” In this sense, it seems that agape trumps eros. Agape does not find itself fulfilled in eros. A relationship that seeks out eros only becomes actualized when agape takes it over, otherwise it crumbles. A relationship that seeks out pure agape in the beginning (with the absence of eros), will be actualized already. Lacking eros will not cause it to crumble. This makes eros unnecessary at every stage of a marital relationship. So how on earth do I expect to find a spouse without being physically attracted to them? By not committing lust and by loving them on the deepest agape level FIRST, and skipping over “eros” completely. I will be attracted to their soul, their personality, the stamp of the creator in them, and NOT to their body./ QUOTE]

St. John Paul II is absolutely right in downplaying eros, because a relationship should not be based in any serious way on this. Physical attraction is superficial and Agape abides forever; without Agape everything is in vain, even our faith. But, because ‘eros’ is downplayed (rightfully so) it does not follow that ‘eros’ serves no purpose, or is always unlawful.

I think that your criteria for finding a spouse are right on the money; we should be looking at their soul, their personality, the stamp of the creator in them etc. But, the issue I see is that you seem to be tacitly assuming that all physical attraction is ‘lust’ and therefore unlawful, this is where I think you are mistaken. More like, in my opinion, physical attraction is ‘accidental’ to the essence of a relationship at any level – as you pointed out ‘eros’ is unnecessary, but it is too extreme to go to the point of condemning it at every level.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

This is all well and good, but what’s he’s talking about in the end is “procreation.” On that point, I can agree. Procreation is a good thing. Nowhere here does he talk about “sexual attraction” in and of ITSELF.

I didn’t mean to imply that the ‘great good’ is the pleasure, just merely to show that there is no sin in the venereal act and therefore if there is no sin, then there is no sin in the pleasure or the desire which accompanies it in lawful relation.

I’m with you on the sin of lust not being in the sexual act or “accident” of pleasure that it produces. The problem I have with this is how it’s possible to “desire it” without falling into lust if lust by its very definition involves the desire for sexual pleasure. How do you “desire rightly” something that (apart from its end in procreation) has no rightful end? Sexual attraction is nothing but the desire in question. In keeping with God’s law or not, if one is sexually attracted to another human being, that person is “desiring” the other person’s body on some level apart from the marital act itself. It seems the only way is to strictly NOT desire the other person physically. At that point, you’re not desiring them, so you’re not committing lust. If you are desiring them, then you are committing lust.

Like I said elsewhere it becomes lust when the person becomes the object of your carnal desire. Not when you simply believe them to be attractive. I can find all sorts of things attractive but have no desire to do anything unlawful with it.

Except that eating food on some level is necessary for self preservation. Procreation is not necessary for self preservation, so it is unlike consumption. At the same time, consumption is necessary whether it is desired or not, whether it is enjoyable or not. The same ought to be true about marital relations then, in which case, in the marital relation, it becomes necessary whether desired or not, whether enjoyed or not. Desire and enjoyment are the unnecessary element no matter how you slice it in either case, and unnecessary elements that do not (in and of themselves) have a higher “end.” There is nothing gained by the body if it “enjoys” a meal, because when it “enjoys” it or not, whether it “desires” it or not, it will benefit from its nutrients. The same ought to be true about marital relations. There is nothing gained if the spouses “enjoy” intercourse, because egg and sperm will still meet up (if the conditions are right). Therefore, “enjoyment” and “desire” are useless and unproductive ends in and of themselves, adding nothing, and so their elimination takes away nothing from the “higher purpose” of the activity. Attention to the higher purpose negates the need for the existence of the lower passions.

Here, I believe, is where the heart of your mistake is. From what I understand you do not see a ‘purpose’ for desire and pleasure. But, indeed, there is a great purpose for both.

Desire, for example, is a motivating factor in seeking a particular thing. Well ordered desire, motivates us to seek something good. For example, when one is hungry and needs to eat one begins to desire food; this desire helps to cause one to seek food to fulfill the needs of their body. This would be a well ordered desire – it is not concupiscence considered in its narrow meaning (disordered desire). If one were to desire to eat beyond capacity, or after having already eaten a meal one desires to just snack a bunch, this would be a person’s appetite acting in a disordered way to act contrary to reason (i.e. motivating that person to seek food when food is not necessary.)

Likewise, if one is married and desires relations with his wife in a lawful way; this desire helps motivate him to seek relations with his wife to fulfill the need to procreate and to unite him more deeply with his spouse (both of these are great goods). So, this well ordered desire is there to motivate him to the particular good – it would not be lust. A disordered desire would be if a man sees a woman and is motivated to have relations with her when he is not married to that person or is motivated to entertain impure thoughts. This would be disordered because it motivates one to do something contrary to reason.

With regard to the purpose of pleasure, I would say that (while as you point out it is not crucial to any act) it does serve a purpose. The pleasure experienced in the conjugal act in a lawful relationship would serve to assist in the ‘unification of the spouses’ and again, if used in accord with right reason it is no sin.

The “it” is the statement “Sexual attraction is a good in and of itself because… ???”

I was responding to you wanting me to “show me where it says sexual attraction is an important factor in human relationships” I was asking what the ‘it’ is that I need to show you what ‘it’ says. I guess, I am not sure what source material you want me to ‘show it to you’ from.

Sexual attraction motivates one to the good of procreation.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

What benefit does the “desire itself” give? The desire itself is not the act itself. It is just the desire. What does merely having the desire itself, apart from the act, benefit anyone?

Desire motivates one toward the act, which if desired and/or done in accord with reason is not sinful.

So if one desires “lawful sexual gratification” then it’s not concupiscence?

It is not concupiscence unless the desire is ‘disordered.’ If what you desire is in accord with right reason it is not concupiscence. Desiring sexual relations with one’s spouse, for example, is not contrary to reason and therefore not concupiscence in the strict sense.

Does that mean (as a man) I can desire sex with a future wife and not be committing lust? I seriously doubt that. We’re all familiar with Matthew 5:28. Christ specifically says “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Christ is condemning the heart. If a man (for example) desires that which is NOT his “wife” (since they are not married yet), and desires her before marriage in that way, that would constitute “adultery” by these terms, and adultery is outside of right reason and God’s law, and sexual desire outside of right reason and God’s law is called concupiscence, and concupiscence is the main ingredient in the “lust in the heart.” Therefore, I conclude that such a “desiring” of someone before marriage IS lust. If that be the case, then it’s no accident that Christ’s words in 5:29 follow what to do with these “desires” in a very bodily manner: “if your right arm offends you, cut if off…etc.” That doesn’t sound like “manage the offense” … that sounds like, “yes, even though it’s a part of you, dispose of it!” Christ isn’t making concessions toward sexual desire before marriage. He’s telling us to “cut it off” completely and perhaps even painfully, no matter how “attached” it is to our bodily makeup.

I didn’t say that desiring to have sex (and indulging in those thoughts) outside of the marriage bond is lawful, that would be the very definition of ‘lust’ I was mostly responding to the general attitude that you have toward sexuality as expressed your former post to me as well as comment #43 “Being attracted to another human being is nothing but lust, whether married or not. Physical attraction to other human beings leads to nothing but lust. Christ said so. God would not give us a desire that only leads a soul to hell. Therefore, I’m forced to accept that sexual attraction in ALL of its forms is the result of original sin and therefore should be despised.”

I am trying to show that not all desire for sex is wrong. Within the confines of marriage sexual desire is not lust nor is it a sin (unless it excludes or negates the ends for which the sexual act was instituted) – I don’t mean not a Mortal sin; I mean not a sin period. It is not immoral, and it is not ‘lust’

Furthermore, as said above, I would make an important distinction between ‘physical attraction’ and ‘sexual desire’ they are different. So, merely being attracted to another human being – thinking they are pretty or attractive in a general way – is not even remotely the same as overtly entertaining desires to have unlawful relations with her.

So, in answer to your question above: “Does that mean (as a man) I can desire sex with a future wife and not be committing lust?” I would answer that it is most assuredly a mortal sin to entertain thoughts and fantasies of having sex with someone that isn’t presently your spouse (even if they may be in the near future). However, I would say that it is no sin at all to recognize that a person is physically attractive as an attribute of that person; i.e. if you have a female friend that is beautiful, it is no sin to recognize that they are really attractive (pretty eyes, smile, figure etc) because you are honestly recognizing an attribute of that person as a person without reducing that person to an object. It is most definitely a physical attraction, because you are recognizing physical aspects of that person that you find appealing, but you haven’t let that ‘appeal’ take over and turn into an overt desire to ‘have’ that person in a carnal fashion. You recognize aspects of the person while also maintaining their dignity as a child of God made in the image and likeness of God. The ‘lust’ comes into the picture when you reduce the person to that attribute; in other words, you look at a person as if they were a piece of meat, there for your carnal gratification, or if you entertain doing things with that person that are unlawful (which they would all be unlawful at that point because she isn’t your wife).

So, to summarize, I would say that if you spotted a woman and thought that she was pretty and ‘attractive’ in a general way, but it didn’t go beyond that, it would be no sin. It would be no sin to approach that person on that basis alone, if you purpose was to get to know that person – the soul of that person, not merely their carnal body.

Of course, a word of caution needs to be expressed here. That is, for many people, the ‘attraction’ can quickly turn into actual lust – because of our disordered tendencies. So, it is good advice and may well be necessary advice for to avoid unnecessarily looking at members of the opposite sex (especially if they are immodestly dressed), not to become scrupulous about it but to keep good custody of the eyes so that you do not expose yourself without need to sin. Not because simply looking at the person is wrong, but because for many people it can be an occasion of sin (perhaps even a near occasion of sin).

Of course, this is just my opinion based on my understanding formed through reasoning, various reading and advice given to me and such. It would probably be a very good idea to speak to a faithful priest about this more. Since, I have no authority whatever to teach.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

He said it in Matthew 5:28-29, effectively.

I see him saying ‘every one who looks at a woman lustfully’ but you have yet to establish that all attraction is ‘lust’

When you get hungry, you eat and give your body nutrients and the result is the hunger decreases. What do you do when you feel aroused? Do you run out, find a wife, get married, run home with her, and have sex in order to decrease the desire for sex? Of course not! You don’t treat the sexual longing the same as the longing for food! So I don’t see how you can continue to compare them. The desire for food finds its purpose met when you eat. The desire for sex does NOT find its purpose met simply by having sex. If that was the case then we ought to treat sex as though it were a meal to satiate an appetite rather than to procreate.

Well, what you have to do is learn some self control. Eating a meal when you get hungry is easy because it is not unlawful to eat a meal most of the time you get hungry like it is with our sexual motivations. I continue to compare them for the same reason that the doctors of the Church compare them; because they are both part of the concupiscible powers of the sensual appetite and serve similar functions; they both drive us to seek goods for their appropriate end – food to satisfy hunger and provide for the needs of the body and sexual urges for the purposes of procreation and continuation of the species. They both must be subject to right reason (so they cannot be used outside of their lawful bounds) and as it stands now they are both disordered and tend to act contrary to our reason.

We shouldn’t treat ‘eating a meal’ as simply satisfying a desire or urge anymore than we should treat sexuality that way. The urge is there to direct us to the appropriate end, and in neither case should the desire be the end itself; neither in eating nor in sex. It is just more crucial to emphasize this with regards to sexual relations because willful lust is always a mortal sin, and gluttony is not always a mortal sin.

This is a very important difference that so many ignore both inside the Church and outside. Outside the Church, it’s regarded as a bodily function. Inside the Church though, there is a complete inability to recognize that a person does indeed have desires BEFORE marriage that can not lawfully be carried out and so intrinsically lead the person only toward sin (as even Christ himself said). The Church, continuing to insist upon the “goodness” of the desires though makes this issue confusing, and many are left scratching their heads trying to figure out how a “desire” that ONLY leads to sin can be “good” for them even BEFORE marriage. It’s like, the Church only views sexual longing as existing in a person after marriage has been undertaken, and looks at the whole situation from a lens of “after-marriage.” After marriage, it is very right to call it “good,” since after marriage it has at least a proper context. Before marriage, it has NO proper context, and therefore ISN’T “good.”

I think what I have said so far addresses these points.

How does one conquer it?

With regards to the ‘crippling loneliness’ I would say that one just needs to grow deeper in their relationship with God. Realize that God is our ultimate end (not that having a spouse is wrong, or any of these worldly pleasures are wrong of themselves, but that attachment to them is not good). At least, that is what helped me get past a lot the ‘loneliness’ that you speak of. It may well be that your vocation is marriage, but we all need to strive to find contentment in whatever situation we find ourselves in. I am convinced that this can only be done through the grace of Christ. As St. Paul says to the Philippians: “I rejoice in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me; you were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want. I can do all things in him who strengthens me.”

With regards to overcoming ‘lust’ specifically; I can only suggest what has helped with my struggles so far and others that I have read about. 1) Determination to overcome it and not be subject to it. 2) Eliminate the occasions of sin 3) frequent use of the Sacraments. 4) Fasting and bodily mortifications. 5) Prayer – especially the Rosary. If you fall, even once, go to Confession immediately and do not be content to sin repeatedly until you manage to get to Confession; each mortal sin just further weakens you.

 

[Mark86]

Lust by definition is a “The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.” Simply saying that someone is pretty, or thinking them attractive in a physical way, is not lusting unless you are doing it in a fashion that is for the ‘inordinate craving for… carnal pleasure’

Is this really true? If it is, then perhaps the hangups that I have about sexuality are my own. I did not grow up in the Church, but in a very unhealthy “Christian” household. I’ve always held this idea that all physical attraction is lust, so it’s an idea that’s hard for me to shake, even though everything you say makes sense. I can’t see myself allowing myself to appreciate the beauty in a human being. for so long I’ve felt like I had to be this inhuman mechanism, no desire, no nothing, and that that was the path of completeness. But what happened was, because I could not simply appreciate the beauty in others or allow myself to appreciate them in full, I became consumed in taking them apart. I turn them into objects for my pleasure rather than simply appreciating them as the beautiful creatures they are in full. Catholicism is teaching me to get over my hangup about repressing the healthy desire, actually teaching me to appreciate the beauty of others in the way God intended… and by doing so, stop the unhealthy result of my self-imposed repression. God essentially wants to undo piece by piece everything that has done me in over the years.

You must realize that the appetites are part of the created order of our nature; having them is part of what it means to be human and not to have them would mean that you are not a human being. It is not like the Fall ‘generated’ these extra faculties of human nature, they were all there to begin with, as part of our nature. The Fall, through Original Sin, destroyed Adam’s Original Justice and wounded his nature (which he passed on to us), the result of this is that the powers were disordered, not that new ones were created.

I have difficulty being able to accept my own humanity, including the lawful passions that arise out of it. I know it’s problematic but I don’t know how to fix it. I don’t know how to allow myself to appreciate the beauty of others in a healthy way.

“But those passions which regard present good, as joy and love; or which regard future good to be had at the proper time, as desire and hope that casteth not down, existed in the state of innocence; otherwise, however, than as they exist in ourselves."

So, “the inferior appetite was wholly subject to reason” not that they didn’t have this appetite.

It’s still an inferior appetite. I’m wondering why God would even permit us to have inferior appetites. What good do they do for us? Why not just make us operate on reason? Then, regardless of status (fall or no fall), we would have no appetites to to “subject,” we would just have pure reason. I’m someone who doesn’t want to have to feel pleasure or pain, lawful or unlawful. The very notion of having “desires” and “appetites” of any sort makes me upset. I’d prefer to simply have reason, because then I wouldn’t sin sins like lust to begin with. I don’t want to enjoy or find displeasure in anything. Like I said, the idea of being human and having these desires saddens me still.

Desire, for example, is a motivating factor in seeking a particular thing. Well ordered desire, motivates us to seek something good.

The key word here is “a” motivating factor. There are other, better, motivating factors than desire. Reason for example is a better motivating factor. Why should I pay attention lesser motivating factors like “desire” when “reason” works better? Especially when desire by itself, as you point out, can lead to sin unless it is subject to reason anyways. Reason on its own avoids that potential pitfall. It seems to me that the better option would be to avoid the potential pitfall of desire and just follow the motivating factor of reason, which seems to have no pitfalls. Why “desire” anything at all?

Likewise, if one is married and desires relations with his wife in a lawful way; this desire helps motivate him to seek relations with his wife to fulfill the need to procreate and to unite him more deeply with his spouse (both of these are great goods).

Why can’t he just let reason just dictate he do that? Why involve desire?

 

[Mark86]

With regard to the purpose of pleasure, I would say that (while as you point out it is not crucial to any act) it does serve a purpose. The pleasure experienced in the conjugal act in a lawful relationship would serve to assist in the ‘unification of the spouses’ and again, if used in accord with right reason it is no sin.

So is the pleasure of sexual relations some kind of “bonus” that God threw in at the last minute? To me, I don’t see a purpose for there to be pleasure in sex. Everything is perfect as far as male and female complimentarity: the act makes them one flesh, the physical bond of their union is manifested in the offspring…etc. etc. Everything is good with this setup. Why did God add bodily pleasure to the mix? Taking out the pleasure wouldn’t take anything away from the unitive aspect of the act. Why does God seem to want us to desire love-making? Why did he give us this “drive” for it?

Sexual attraction motivates one to the good of procreation.

So does reason. Why does God cause us to “desire” it if reason can simply dictate that it is good for us? Why can’t it operate like penance, where it is something potentially painful that you endure for the sake of the beloved because God and right reason declare it to be good? Why can’t love-making be like a form of spiritual penance? Why did God choose to make it the opposite, so easy to be indulged in?

Ever since I was a kid I’ve asked this question… “God why didn’t you make sex painful?”

Furthermore, as said above, I would make an important distinction between ‘physical attraction’ and ‘sexual desire’ they are different. So, merely being attracted to another human being – thinking they are pretty or attractive in a general way – is not even remotely the same as overtly entertaining desires to have unlawful relations with her.

However, I would say that it is no sin at all to recognize that a person is physically attractive as an attribute of that person; i.e. if you have a female friend that is beautiful, it is no sin to recognize that they are really attractive (pretty eyes, smile, figure etc) because you are honestly recognizing an attribute of that person as a person without reducing that person to an object. It is most definitely a physical attraction, because you are recognizing physical aspects of that person that you find appealing, but you haven’t let that ‘appeal’ take over and turn into an overt desire to ‘have’ that person in a carnal fashion. You recognize aspects of the person while also maintaining their dignity as a child of God made in the image and likeness of God.

So then it’s actually okay to say to oneself “he/she is beautiful/handsome.” Why can’t I just do that? Now I want to.

So, to summarize, I would say that if you spotted a woman and thought that she was pretty and ‘attractive’ in a general way, but it didn’t go beyond that, it would be no sin. It would be no sin to approach that person on that basis alone, if you purpose was to get to know that person – the soul of that person, not merely their carnal body.

For so long I’ve kept myself from getting to know people because I felt like I wasn’t worthwhile for them to get to know, and if I thought they were pretty or attractive, or handsome, I just tried to squelch that idea in its tracks. To “cut it off and cast it from me”… so to speak. How do I stop this deeply ingrained behavior?

Of course, this is just my opinion based on my understanding formed through reasoning, various reading and advice given to me and such. It would probably be a very good idea to speak to a faithful priest about this more. Since, I have no authority whatever to teach.

People like me need a teacher.

With regards to the ‘crippling loneliness’ I would say that one just needs to grow deeper in their relationship with God. Realize that God is our ultimate end (not that having a spouse is wrong, or any of these worldly pleasures are wrong of themselves, but that attachment to them is not good).

I know attachment to them is not good. That’s why I refused to appreciate pleasures to begin with, and that’s why I’m in the mess I’m in as far as indulging them and taking people apart.

 

[PulvisEtCinis]

Is this really true? If it is, then perhaps the hangups that I have about sexuality are my own. I did not grow up in the Church, but in a very unhealthy “Christian” household. I’ve always held this idea that all physical attraction is lust, so it’s an idea that’s hard for me to shake, even though everything you say makes sense. I can’t see myself allowing myself to appreciate the beauty in a human being. for so long I’ve felt like I had to be this inhuman mechanism, no desire, no nothing, and that that was the path of completeness.

What we have to do is to remove our attachment to worldly things and to eliminate our willing entertainment of desire for things that are unlawful (sin). It is no sin to enjoy something that is lawful or desire something that is lawful, but it is not good to be attached to that lawful enjoyment that it detracts from your relationship with God, or even to the point that it becomes your ‘god.’ God is our fulfillment, He is our final end. Yet, he has made things here on this earth that may lawfully be used

From all that you have said, I would say that you are oversensitive to the issue of sexuality. The more oversensitive we become to things we more rigorous we have a way of becoming ‘over eating is a sin, so therefore I just will eat less’ and then before you know it you are boxed into a corner and in a state of physical starvation out of fear that eating a full meal is a grave sin. Likewise, you are concerned about committing lust (a very good concern) but it seems that you have gotten yourself into a box where even the slightest glance at or attraction to another human being is seen as a grave sin.

Like I said before, we do have to be very careful with our attraction to other people, because of our weakened, fallen nature we have a very strong tendency to let ‘lawful attraction’ (i.e. I think that person is pretty) turn into lust (I must have that person, or I will just pleasure myself by imagining doing things that are unlawful). I mean, some people may be so prone to falling into the sin that it does become lust in very short order. So, I advise keeping custody of the eyes whenever possible, but don’t become so scrupulous about it that every attraction is perceived as temptation, or worse, as mortal sin.

Why can’t he just let reason just dictate he do that? Why involve desire? ……… Why did God add bodily pleasure to the mix?

Ok, I conflated a few of your comments into one to keep this short.

I will basically say ‘I don’t know’ I am not sure anyone can know. I will say this though, God made us as bodily creatures, so it makes sense that we have bodily functions and therefore bodily senses and motivations. If he had wanted, he could have made us like the angels who cannot suffer concupiscence because they have no body. In the end, if we had not lost original justice, I do not see what the problem would be in having desires or pleasures. So, I guess my question is ‘why not make us this way?’ God loves His creation; he didn’t make us to hate us. I think He knew what He was doing when He made us; He looked upon His creation and “saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”

Ever since I was a kid I’ve asked this question… “God why didn’t you make sex painful?”

Because there wouldn’t be a human race alive today if it were painful. Raising children and putting up with a spouse can be painful enough, why make it even harder? Of course, I am jesting a bit, but still…

So then it’s actually okay to say to oneself “he/she is beautiful/handsome.” Why can’t I just do that? Now I want to.

No sin, at least not that I can see, until you start entertaining unlawful desire. Which, like I said above, we cannot underestimate our concupiscence because it is easy to go beyond what is lawful; our disordered appetites tend to prompt us to that. So, I am certainly not advocating going out and ‘girl watching,’ that is a sure recipe for lust and would probably be a near occasion of sin at least for most people. But, if you see someone that is pretty it isn’t a grave sin to say ‘that person is pretty’ and simply move on. It becomes a problem when you keep looking, or your objective is to ‘ogle’ the person, or to just be looking around for some lady to feast your eyes on, because they are people made in the image and likeness of God, not objects for us to ‘get off’ on.

How do I stop this deeply ingrained behavior?

With hard work, prayer and wise counsel.

People like me need a teacher.

We all need a teacher. You should find a faithful Catholic priest and discuss these issues. You probably will need a long-term spiritual director.

I know attachment to them is not good. That’s why I refused to appreciate pleasures to begin with, and that’s why I’m in the mess I’m in as far as indulging them and taking people apart.

Well, brother, most of us are indeed in a mess. That’s, in part, why we are Catholic; we didn’t become Catholic because we are Saints already, we became Catholic because we wish to be Saints and we are dependent on God to be so. Christ didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners. “But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13)

 

[Mark86]

In the end, if we had not lost original justice, I do not see what the problem would be in having desires or pleasures. So, I guess my question is ‘why not make us this way?’ God loves His creation; he didn’t make us to hate us. I think He knew what He was doing when He made us; He looked upon His creation and “saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”

What you’re touching on here is something rather fascinating because it kind of gets at the mind and “personality” (for lack of a better word) of God. After all, both Sts. Paul and Aquinas talked about how the visible world gives us information about the “invisible God.” So if we look around and see that God has designed creatures that desire and feel pleasure, God must value those things. God must value desire and pleasure then. If we understand the fall to mean that these natural implanted values became disordered, then we get concupiscence, but if there had been no fall, then we creatures would be down here desiring and feeling pleasure and God would be happy with that. And it’s not like God would be happier that his creation was desiring and feeling pleasure vs. not… it would be just because God is a nice guy.

It’s just so bizarre to me to think that God is actually “okay” with pleasure (subjected to reason). “Pleasure” is not something typically associated with “Catholicism.” One of the reasons I became Catholic was because of its commonly understood “strict repressive” stance on sexuality. Apparently not so… who knew? It’s not like anyone ever told me that Catholicism wasn’t puritanical.

Because there wouldn’t be a human race alive today if it were painful. Raising children and putting up with a spouse can be painful enough, why make it even harder? Of course, I am jesting a bit, but still…

It would mean that people would have children for the same reason people perform acts of penance, rather than treat it like some kind of recreation. Sex would be something two people would do together to “fill up in their bodies what is lacking in the wounds of Christ for the sake of His body” …and then we wouldn’t have to worry about “lust” so much.

It would also make life a heck of a lot easier for us UN-married folk (yes, we do exist).

No sin, at least not that I can see, until you start entertaining unlawful desire.

That little allowance of being able to say “I appreciate the beauty that God has made” may be enough to help me leave behind my sexual addiction. The alternative certainly isn’t working.

With hard work, prayer and wise counsel.

This is a staggering amount of irony. I became Catholic because I thought it was going to help me become an asexual puritan. But instead, God is pointing me in the direction of me “working hard” and “praying” to have the grace to appreciate the beauty in other human beings. I even made a post a few months ago in the prayer room asking people to pray that God “make me attracted to women.” What an odd prayer, but it worked in spades.

I still kind of want to be a puritan though. I want to get on with my life and not have to fight sex and fetish thoughts all the time. I want my life to be more about what I can accomplish and do in it rather than just white-knuckling fetishism.

 

[Digosisenor]

Don’t say “marriage” is the outlet for sexual desire, because getting married due to sexual desire or to deal with sexual desire is not healthy.

Doesn’t it say in the bible that it is better for a man to be single, BUT if his desires are too great he should be married?

 

[GEddie]

Mark, you do understand that the Puritans were not Catholic, right?

“Puritanism” whether historical or stereotypical is not a Catholic practice or rubric.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Burdock]

You don’t think I’ve read this a thousand times? I agree with it. I’ve memorized it. The difficulty is in understanding it, not just reading it.

Find me where it says that sexual “attraction” is necessary in the spousal relationship, or ANY human relationship for that matter. Sure, the gift of being able to procreate and unite in matrimony is a gift from God. That is one thing, but that has nothing to do with “sexual attraction” or “sexuality.” Marriage is not the “remedy” for the disorder of finding other human being sexually attractive. Being attracted to another human being is nothing but lust, whether married or not. Physical attraction to other human beings leads to nothing but lust. Christ said so. God would not give us a desire that only leads a soul to hell. Therefore, I’m forced to accept that sexual attraction in ALL of its forms is the result of original sin and therefore should be despised.

Since sexuality is not required in a marital relationship, nor does it lead a person into one, and since all outlets for it are sinful otherwise, I’m kind of forced to think that sexual attraction to others is nothing but a disorder left over from the fall. I think you have a psychological problem here, have you had any help with this?

If I’m wrong, show me.

 

[Burdock]

What we have to do is to remove our attachment to worldly things and to eliminate our willing entertainment of desire for things that are unlawful (sin). It is no sin to enjoy something that is lawful or desire something that is lawful, but it is not good to be attached to that lawful enjoyment that it detracts from your relationship with God, or even to the point that it becomes your ‘god.’ God is our fulfillment, He is our final end. Yet, he has made things here on this earth that may lawfully be used

From all that you have said, I would say that you are oversensitive to the issue of sexuality. The more oversensitive we become to things we more rigorous we have a way of becoming ‘over eating is a sin, so therefore I just will eat less’ and then before you know it you are boxed into a corner and in a state of physical starvation out of fear that eating a full meal is a grave sin. Likewise, you are concerned about committing lust (a very good concern) but it seems that you have gotten yourself into a box where even the slightest glance at or attraction to another human being is seen as a grave sin.

Like I said before, we do have to be very careful with our attraction to other people, because of our weakened, fallen nature we have a very strong tendency to let ‘lawful attraction’ (i.e. I think that person is pretty) turn into lust (I must have that person, or I will just pleasure myself by imagining doing things that are unlawful). I mean, some people may be so prone to falling into the sin that it does become lust in very short order. So, I advise keeping custody of the eyes whenever possible, but don’t become so scrupulous about it that every attraction is perceived as temptation, or worse, as mortal sin.

Ok, I conflated a few of your comments into one to keep this short.

I will basically say ‘I don’t know’ I am not sure anyone can know. I will say this though, God made us as bodily creatures, so it makes sense that we have bodily functions and therefore bodily senses and motivations. If he had wanted, he could have made us like the angels who cannot suffer concupiscence because they have no body. In the end, if we had not lost original justice, I do not see what the problem would be in having desires or pleasures. So, I guess my question is ‘why not make us this way?’ God loves His creation; he didn’t make us to hate us. I think He knew what He was doing when He made us; He looked upon His creation and “saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”

Because there wouldn’t be a human race alive today if it were painful. Raising children and putting up with a spouse can be painful enough, why make it even harder? Of course, I am jesting a bit, but still…

No sin, at least not that I can see, until you start entertaining unlawful desire. Which, like I said above, we cannot underestimate our concupiscence because it is easy to go beyond what is lawful; our disordered appetites tend to prompt us to that. So, I am certainly not advocating going out and ‘girl watching,’ that is a sure recipe for lust and would probably be a near occasion of sin at least for most people. But, if you see someone that is pretty it isn’t a grave sin to say ‘that person is pretty’ and simply move on. It becomes a problem when you keep looking, or your objective is to ‘ogle’ the person, or to just be looking around for some lady to feast your eyes on, because they are people made in the image and likeness of God, not objects for us to ‘get off’ on.

With hard work, prayer and wise counsel.

We all need a teacher. You should find a faithful Catholic priest and discuss these issues. You probably will need a long-term spiritual director.

Well, brother, most of us are indeed in a mess. That’s, in part, why we are Catholic; we didn’t become Catholic because we are Saints already, we became Catholic because we wish to be Saints and we are dependent on God to be so. Christ didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners. “But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13)

I do think this may be a psychological problem not a spiritual one, have you thought of gettingcthat sort of help.It seems this is takingvover your life.