"homosexual person" myth or Truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjr9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
for a second, just cause it’s pleasing".
Click to expand...
What is the beautiful?
id quod visum placet***

(St. Thomas).

That which being seen…pleases

Distinguish that from say …seeking or consenting to sexual pleasure …or even looking immodestly.

Yes with the human form - greater care must be taken (see Love and Responsibility)…of course. But it is important not to apply lust where it is not necessarily present.
 
goout said:
Christ tells us that not all lust is explicit action.
Click to expand...
Yes of course.

He tells us if one looks at a person -* in order to lust* - then one has already committed adultery in ones heart.
 
goout said:
I don’t want to derail, but it is the appropriation of another person for one’s own pleasure, however insignificant it might be. It might be merely an act of the heart and the eyes, but…

.
Click to expand...
One can notice -even a second time- an attractive person without seeking sexual pleasure.

One can notice -even a second time- an attractive person without turning them into an “object”.

Should one exercise reasonable custody of the senses?

Yes of course.

Will there be various circumstances - and some which could temp one?

Sure.

Is looking a second time often safer in theory than practice? Sure.

One must judge. By prudence, modesty and chastity.
 
goout said:
…If I say, “wow she is attractive and I am looking again”, that is lust, by def. .
Click to expand...
That might depend on what is in your mind as you look. There is no need to turn away from beauty if your mind and will are in check.
 
goout said:
for a second, just cause it’s pleasing".
Click to expand...
What is the beautiful?
id quod visum placet***

(St. Thomas).

That which being seen…pleases

Distinguish that from say …seeking or consenting to sexual pleasure …or even looking immodestly.

Yes with the human form - greater care must be taken (see Love and Responsibility)…of course. But it is important not to apply lust where it is not necessarily present…
 
goout said:
If I say, “wow she is attractive and I am looking again”, that is lust, by def.

(now, let’s not get carried away with anxiety over this, because on the gravity scale of 1-100 this is probably a 1 and is nothing to be scrupulous about).
Click to expand...
Again on the first line - no. Not by definition.

As to this last part - it is here that your intuition points you towards the truth. For you suggest here that such would be the gravity of 1. This shows that your use of the term lust here is not here per se correct. For lust is a ‘grave matter’. Your intuition rather shows that a “second look” for a second is not necessarily lust for your giving it the scale of prob. 1.

Lust is grave matter and if done with full knowledge and complete consent - that is a mortal sin. If it is lust that one commits - the scale is not 1 …the scale is…death.

Thankfully as I noted - a “second look” does not necessarily mean one has committed lust!

It may or may not be ordered…but it is not necessarily lust.

Now of course one could look in that second look - in a lustful way as noted by Jesus -then your well in the area of lust. Not saying that cannot happen. It can.

But “wow she is attractive and I am looking again” is not lust - “by definition”. Yes it *could *become lust sure…but simply looking again does not mean per se that it is lust.

And yes of course a reasonable custody of the eyes is rather important (even beyond avoiding lust).
 
Bookcat said:
One can notice -even a second time- an attractive person without seeking sexual pleasure.

One can notice -even a second time- an attractive person without turning them into an “object”.
Click to expand...
One can notice?
Ok, one can notice. Sure.

Here is my assumption in the discussion, re the topic of attraction leading to lust.

That when I see someone and am attracted, the second look serves the attraction and temptation, not chaste behavior.
It is not a disinterested appreciation of natural beauty. It is specifically sexual.
I look twice at a woman who is not my wife, because it is pleasurable. That is objectification.
That is lust by definition, although on a small scale.

That is my assumption in this discussion of attraction-leading-to-lust. Your assumption is that further looking is not serving sexual attraction to someone not my wife. Ok. (not a very realistic scenario, I;m just sayin…)

A good working barometer of lust is “where does it lead?”.
If you see and appreciate once and mind your own business, that leads to chaste behavior. I have appreciated beauty and that’s good.

A second look for pleasure frequently leads to further justification of bad behavior and simply builds the fire.

Enough hair splitting for me.
 
goout said:
Here is my assumption in the discussion, re the topic of attraction leading to lust.

That when I see someone and am attracted, the second look serves the attraction and temptation, not chaste behavior. Maybe. Or maybe not.
It is not a disinterested appreciation of natural beauty. It is specifically sexual. Yes boys are attracted to girls and girls to boys…that is well attraction of the sexes for each other
I look twice at a woman who is not my wife, because it is pleasurable. That is objectification. Again maybe or maybe not.
Bookcat;14378505:
What is the beautiful?
Click to expand...
id quod visum placet***

(St. Thomas).

That which being seen…pleases

Distinguish that from say …seeking or consenting to sexual pleasure …or even looking immodestly.

Yes with the human form - greater care must be taken (see Love and Responsibility)…of course. But it is important not to apply lust where it is not necessarily present…
That is lust by definition, although on a small scale. no. Lust is desire for or enjoyment of disordered sexual pleasure …see the CCC. And lust is on the LARGE scale…it is grave matter for mortal sin. See my post up above

That is my assumption in this discussion of attraction-leading-to-lust. Your assumption is that further looking is not serving sexual attraction to someone not my wife. Ok. (not a very realistic scenario, I;m just sayin…)rather I am saying what i have been saying in our posts back and forth…that and only that

A good working barometer of lust is “where does it lead?”.
If you see and appreciate once and mind your own business, that leads to chaste behavior. I have appreciated beauty and that’s good.

A second look for pleasure frequently leads to further justification of bad behavior and simply builds the fire. It could yes. Or it may not.

Enough hair splitting for me.
Click to expand...
Nope not hair splitting.

“distinguishing”

Have you read the other posts I posted to you up above. They are important.
 
Bookcat said:
Nope not hair splitting.

Have you read the other posts I posted to you up above. They are important.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are either using different assumptions about intent as I said, or we disagree about what lust is.
In any case, all has been said and my head hurts from going in circles.
 
goout said:
Yes, we are either using different assumptions about intent as I said, or we disagree about what lust is.
In any case, all has been said and my head hurts from going in circles.
Click to expand...
Yes that is part of the difficulty. Your not using the term Lust as the Church use it.
 
goout said:
Yes, we are either using different assumptions about intent as I said, or we disagree about what lust is.
.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14378505&postcount=164

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14378521&postcount=165
Bookcat said:
Again on the first line - no. Not by definition.

As to this last part - it is here that your intuition points you towards the truth. For you suggest here that such would be the gravity of 1. This shows that your use of the term lust here is not here per se correct. For lust is a ‘grave matter’.

Your intuition rather shows that a “second look” for a second is not necessarily lust for your giving it the scale of prob. 1.

Lust is grave matter and if done with full knowledge and complete consent - that is a mortal sin. If it is lust that one commits - the scale is not 1 …the scale is…death.

Thankfully as I noted - a “second look” does not necessarily mean one has committed lust!

It may or may not be ordered…but it is not necessarily lust.

Now of course one could look in that second look - in a lustful way as noted by Jesus -then your well in the area of lust. Not saying that cannot happen. It can.

But “wow she is attractive and I am looking again” is not lust - “by definition”. Yes it *could */I]become lust sure…but simply looking again does not mean per se that it is lust.

And yes of course a reasonable custody of the eyes is rather important (even beyond avoiding lust).

CCC 2351:

" Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure."
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14378521&postcount=165

CCC 2351:

" Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure."
Click to expand...
The only way your position works is if the attraction and looking is not sexual.
As I said, my assumption for a productive discussion is to assume sexual attraction, and pursuing it with a second look.

Go to Theology of Body for an in depth exposition of what lust is. Roughly chapters 28-40.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
It’s almost impossible to pick one quote but here is one:
  1. Nonetheless, these words clearly assert that lust is a real part of the human heart. When compared with the original mutual attraction of masculinity and femininity, lust represents a reduction. In stating this, we have in mind an intentional reduction, almost a restriction or closing down of the horizon of mind and heart. It is one thing to be conscious that the value of sex is a part of all the rich storehouse of values with which the female appears to the man. It is another to “reduce” all the personal riches of femininity to that single value, that is, of sex, as a suitable object for the gratification of sexuality itself. The same reasoning can be valid concerning what masculinity is for the woman, even though Matthew’s words in 5:27-28 refer directly to the other relationship only. As can be seen, the intentional reduction is primarily of an axiological nature. On one hand the eternal attraction of man toward femininity (cf. Gn 2:23) frees in him—or perhaps it should free—a gamut of spiritual-corporal desires of an especially personal and “sharing” nature (cf. the analysis of the “beginning”), to which a proportionate pyramid of values corresponds. On the other hand, lust limits this gamut, obscuring the pyramid of values that marks the perennial attraction of male and female.
Click to expand...
JP2 exhaustively discusses the internal dimension of lust that is an appropriation of another’s sexuality for one’s own pleasure. This is not merely an OT conception of proven physical activity. Christ changes the whole paradigm of adultery/lust in the sermon on the mount.
\And that is my last post on the subject.
Take the last word.
 
goout said:
The only way your position works is if the attraction and looking is not sexual.
.
Click to expand...
Again - I noted - can a look be lustful?

Yes. As Jesus noted.

But what does the Church tell us lust is?

It it simply attraction? Or ones one noticing -even a second time - an attractive person?

No.

Not per se.

CCC 2351:

" Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure."
 
goout said:
JP2 exhaustively discusses the internal dimension of lust that is an appropriation of another’s sexuality for one’s own pleasure. This is not merely an OT conception of proven physical activity. Christ changes the whole paradigm of adultery/lust in the sermon on the mount.
.
Click to expand...
Yes of course.

And that is* lust.*

And what we have been discussing does not per se become that!

Not every second look at an attractive women who is beautiful -and what is beautiful according to St. Thomas? * id quod visum placet* …that which being seen…pleases - not every such look is lust.

Read St. John Paul’s *Love and Responsibility. *There is much there that will be helpful.

Jimmy Akin - Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers notes:

"what Jesus said was:
Code: 
You have heard that it was said, `You  shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every  one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery  with her in his heart [Matt. 5:27-28  ESV].
Translated a bit more literally, he singled out those who look at a woman “to lust after her.” (I.e., purposefully looking at her in order to incite lustful fantasies, not just looking at her and feeling attraction.)"
 
Bookcat said:
Yes of course.

And that is* lust.*

And what we have been discussing does not per se become that!

Not every look at an attractive women who is beautiful -and what is beautiful according to St. Thomas?
Click to expand...
THAT"S NOT WHAT I SAID AND YOU KNOW IT.
thanks for the irritation…,.
 
goout said:
JP2 exhaustively discusses the internal dimension of lust that is an appropriation of another’s sexuality for one’s own pleasure. .
Click to expand...
Yes of course lust can happen rather all internally.

But my point is that what we have been discussing lately is not necessary such. Is not necessarily reducing a person to a sexual object for sexual pleasure.

That can yes happen.

Lust is yes the disordered desire for or enjoyment of sexual pleasure.

But what we have been discussing is not necessarily such!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top