I can't accept the Church's teachings on Eros

[Pope_Noah_I]

I just can’t bring myself to do it. I’ve prayed, and prayed for months to understand, to accept that Eros is essentially a good thing, that it is of God. God, however, has remained silent. Everytime I think of the subject, I become disgusted and depressed. I understand completely that I should humbly and completely submit to the Church, but my heart is telling me that I am right. Has anyone else gone through the same expierience as me concerning this topic?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Are you getting the teachings from Deus Caritas Est? When I first read it I was surprised, but I’ve come to believe it.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Are you getting the teachings from Deus Caritas Est? When I first read it I was surprised, but I’ve come to believe it.

Deus Caritas Est is what started this whole thing. That and “The Song of Solomon”.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

bump

 

[reggieM]

I’m not that familiar with the topic but on a quick reading I would say that the Encyclical is a bit confusing.

The original meaning of the word “eros” was “lust”.

But the Pope is using the term to mean “marital love”.

Obviously, the encyclical cannot be praising lust – although it does seem that way when using the word “eros” and that word is not defined in the text of the encyclical.

I think this teaching is merely pointing out that marital love is a blessing from God. It cannot be an end in itself.

This was written against the notion that Catholic doctrine teaches a hatred for marriage and the joys that God has given to that state.

But I will admit that it could appear like the Pope was talking about lust itself, detached from marriage, or even in marriage – as if that form of self-indulgence was something good.

This encyclical must be read together with the many teachings of the Church on the dangers of the passions of man – especially lust which has many forms (gluttony, greed, flesh, sensuality).

 

[reggieM]

I understand completely that I should humbly and completely submit to the Church, but my heart is telling me that I am right.

If you’re responding to the ordinary meaning of the word “eros” then your heart is, indeed right.

Unfortunately, I think people will read this encyclical and think the Pope is praising our sensate-lustful culture.

But he’s not (to do so would be sinful and evil).

He’s using a round-about way to teach that the Church does not frown on marriage and marital-union. But he’s putting that in language that (supposedly) will be more understood by contemporary readers who think that the Church frowns on the marriage bond.

This entire topic is limited and bound by the sacrament of marriage, of course.

 

[Fred_4]

PNI, what makes you laugh? I mean, really. Can you tell me about the last time you were laughing so hard that you had tears in your eyes?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I’m not that familiar with the topic but on a quick reading I would say that the Encyclical is a bit confusing.

The original meaning of the word “eros” was “lust”.

But the Pope is using the term to mean “marital love”.

Obviously, the encyclical cannot be praising lust – although it does seem that way when using the word “eros” and that word is not defined in the text of the encyclical.

I think this teaching is merely pointing out that marital love is a blessing from God. It cannot be an end in itself.

This was written against the notion that Catholic doctrine teaches a hatred for marriage and the joys that God has given to that state.

But I will admit that it could appear like the Pope was talking about lust itself, detached from marriage, or even in marriage – as if that form of self-indulgence was something good.

This encyclical must be read together with the many teachings of the Church on the dangers of the passions of man – especially lust which has many forms (gluttony, greed, flesh, sensuality).

I think the Holy Father is using eros to denote a kind of attraction, a possessive love.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m not that familiar with the topic but on a quick reading I would say that the Encyclical is a bit confusing.

The original meaning of the word “eros” was “lust”.

But the Pope is using the term to mean “marital love”.

).

no the original meaning of the word was sexual love, specifically, married love. the meaning has degenerated to refer to only lust. the pope is restoring its rightful meaning.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

This verse speaks of good eros vs improper eros.

 

[reggieM]

I believe the word “eros” originated as the name of the Greek god Eros, who was the god of lust and sexuality.

The Roman god Cupid was modelled after eros.

I don’t think the Pope is using the term in that sense. That would be the love of the flesh.

If the topic is more like “attraction” then that doesn’t seem to fit the word “eros”. Personally, I wouldn’t think much would need to be said about the value of attraction, since it’s common in marriage.

But I think the Pope is counteracting the belief that some people have that Christianity is opposed to marital relations, or that the bond of marriage is something to scorn.

 

[The_Catholic]

I’m not that familiar with the topic but on a quick reading I would say that the Encyclical is a bit confusing.

The original meaning of the word “eros” was “lust”.

But the Pope is using the term to mean “marital love”.

Obviously, the encyclical cannot be praising lust – although it does seem that way when using the word “eros” and that word is not defined in the text of the encyclical.

I think this teaching is merely pointing out that marital love is a blessing from God. It cannot be an end in itself.

This was written against the notion that Catholic doctrine teaches a hatred for marriage and the joys that God has given to that state.

But I will admit that it could appear like the Pope was talking about lust itself, detached from marriage, or even in marriage – as if that form of self-indulgence was something good.

This encyclical must be read together with the many teachings of the Church on the dangers of the passions of man – especially lust which has many forms (gluttony, greed, flesh, sensuality).

I may be off topic here so I’ll expect no one to answer me. But how is *all *lust bad? Without any lust whatsoever how can a male come to an erection and *perform *in the bedroom with his wife? Isn’t that feeling/sensation given to us by God? And I understand it’s meant to be for bonding and offspring. Yet if there is no lust AT ALL how can you have sex, bond, or procreate?

I know lust is generally bad, like taking in too much alcohol, and can lead to emptiness and very horrid sins, but the right amount I can’t find fault with. Wouldn’t make sense, naturally and scientifically the way our bodies are made up.

Or am I totally misunderstanding everything here?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I may be off topic here so I’ll expect no one to answer me. But how is *all *lust bad? Without any lust whatsoever how can a male come to an erection and *perform *in the bedroom with his wife? Isn’t that feeling/sensation given to us by God? And I understand it’s meant to be for bonding and offspring. Yet if there is no lust AT ALL how can you have sex, bond, or procreate?

I know lust is generally bad, like taking in too much alcohol, and can lead to emptiness and very horrid sins, but the right amount I can’t find fault with. Wouldn’t make sense, naturally and scientifically the way our bodies are made up.

Or am I totally misunderstanding everything here?

Attraction is not always bad. Lust is:

The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

Definition from Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

 

[puzzleannie]

I believe the word “eros” originated as the name of the Greek god Eros, who was the god of lust and sexuality.

.

no the original meaning represented by this God was indeed sexual attraction but that leading ultimately to fruitful union specifically marriage. Its meaning was debased in Greek and Roman culture, and later in our own, to merely degenerate lust without its original, earlier higher aspect.

 

[Leopard]

I just can’t bring myself to do it. I’ve prayed, and prayed for months to understand, to accept that Eros is essentially a good thing, that it is of God. God, however, has remained silent. Everytime I think of the subject, I become disgusted and depressed… Has anyone else gone through the same expierience as me concerning this topic?

Yes. The Manichaeans.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Church teaches that sex serves two functions; procreation, and fostering a sense of intimacy and love within a marriage. Both purposes are intended by God.

Enjoy. (but with your spouse, always)

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

The “all lust is bad thing” can be confusing.

So, my wonderful wife wears something enticing to get my attention, and it’s a bad thing? A husband and wife can’t lust for each other only?

Boy, this thread could get interesting. What can a married couple do, or not do together that would be seen as wrong in the eyes of the Church?

 

[antimon]

The “all lust is bad thing” can be confusing.

So, my wonderful wife wears something enticing to get my attention, and it’s a bad thing? A husband and wife can’t lust for each other only?

Boy, this thread could get interesting. What can a married couple do, or not do together that would be seen as wrong in the eyes of the Church?

all lust is bad. period. but notice, that “lust” and “sexual arousal” are two different things (though they the latter can lead to the former).

from CCC:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

when your wife arouses you, do you want to have sex with her just for sex, without unitive (and possibly procreative) purposes? That is lust, and it is bad even between husband and wife.

 

[steveandersen]

To paraphrase Mark Twain:
“What would humanity be without Eros?
“Precious few.”

 

[strngrnrth]

Yes. The Manichaeans.

And me. I’m no Manichean. I love matter. I love art, nature walks, swimming in the river, all kinds of pizza, decorations, cakes, donuts, apples, friends and fun. But the topic of sex (just thinking about the fact that it’s part of social reality and won’t go away) makes me so depressed sometimes I have engineered my life around reminders of it. That’s tricky for such a social person. But I am talking about it because I really want to understand. God has spoken to me and comforted me on this but I still have alot of sadness and anger inside that such a strange and ugly thing, as I have always experienced it, is so important to others. This keeps me from being married and a mother. I want to be a mother. But not a wife.:nope: I also feel very angry that the whole society I live in seems to see people like me as nothing but “prudes” out to ruin their good times because I don’t want the details of a few people’s addiction shoved in my face every time I turn on a TV or pick up a general magazine. If we are allsupposed to be open about our feelings now and free to be ourselves and all that, why is it that only those with a certain outlook are considered acceptable? I speak as someone living in one of the most liberal areas in the US and I am growing tired of trying to get a reasonable discussion on this subject going with local folks. If I seem impatient it’s not with you guys. It’s witht he locals here. Thank you.