Is committing lust towards a non-naked/sexually explicit image equal to viewing pornography?

[Pieman333272]

In light of:

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 5:27-28[/BIBLEDRB]

Would looking at a non-naked, non-sexually explicit picture of a woman (or man if you’re a women) with lust be a mortal sin of pornography? If not, would it be a mortal sin at all?

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

Yes. The sin of pornography, is that we objectify others for our own sexual gratification. If we are doing the same of somebody in an ordinary picture, it’s pretty much the same sin. Strive to find purity of mind and body, not loopholes.

 

[Alex246]

The catechism provides a very specific definition of pornography:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Fr. Michael: I think we should assume that the OP is simply conducting an examination of conscience, and wants to know exactly what he should confess. I see no evidence of “looking for loopholes.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

Matt 5:28 [NAB]

" But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Our Blessed Lord never differentiated between, *nude , scantily clad *and *fully clothed here - he focused on what goes on in the heart *… when we *lust *after someone."

Father John Hardon, S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary defines pornography this way :
Modern Catholic Dictionary ; Fr. John Hardon:

PORNOGRAPHY. A description or portrayal of any person or activity that is consciously intended to stimulate immoral sexual feelings. (Etym. Greek porne, prostitute + graphe, writing.)

.

In those terms, regarding the OP’s example, we ourselves are the ones who "conciously intend to stimulate immoral sexual feelings " by participating - using the image as a tool , as Fr. Michael said, in “objectifying others” for what, in its progression, becomes, “our own sexual gratification.”

Link to Modern Catholic Dictionary

 

[karoleck]

Thank you your short posting ,as it does answer this question very well.

I once heard a priest explain it this way------The human person is a wonderful example of God’s Creative Design and is in fact the summit of it.God created mankind and He found it good.We read in the scriptures "Thank you Lord,for I am wonderfully made’.

God created man & a woman and He commanded them to increase and multiply.So a married couple are free to enjoy each other sexually and God can bless this union which might beget a child and He breaths life into that child.

(1)Now using an example— A man might have married the woman of his dreams and on the honeymoon they can enjoy each other sexually .If they offer this pleasure up to God as included in the morning offering prayer(all our prays,works,joys & sufferings etc) they even gain merit for this sexual act—a sign of their love for each other.

(2)But let us say that his best man had lustful thoughts about his buddy;he could be imagining all sorts of arousing fantasies on what they could be doing.Now ,if these were just passing thoughts, then there would be not sin.But if he was aware of them,but still entertained these thoughts deliberately, then he would be committing a sin.

Example one (1) is something good, but the second(2) is sinful.Why? Whilst the activities of a newly married couple are good;his best buddy puts a twisted slant on it,with the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

Now this example I believe, can apply to the question asked in the thread.An attractive person have presented themselves and in this case fully clothed.This could be in a movie,photograph or someone walking along the street;all just going about their daily business.A person might be sexually attracted ,which can be an uncontrolled imaginings or desire.This can be just part of our fallen human condition.But if a person uses these persons or images in order to gratify themselves sexually(lust); then again, they have twisted and warped their mind.

I remember a person telling me that when he visited a prison which had a large proportion of sex offending prisoners ,that he was instructed not to have any newspapers/magazines with photographs of young boys or girls. Whilst this is on the extreme edge of our society,never the less ,these people use innocent children as tools for their inordinate sexual urges.

Watching pornography can “re-wire” the brain and it twists and warps a perception of the God given gift of sex and the possibility of partaking in God’s own creative powers.

Oh Most Pure Heart of Mary,make me pure in body and in mind and in heart.Amen.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

The catechism provides a very specific definition of pornography:

Fr. Michael: I think we should assume that the OP is simply conducting an examination of conscience, and wants to know exactly what he should confess. I see no evidence of “looking for loopholes.”

My appologies if I misread the tone of the question.

 

[michelleds]

Yes. The sin of pornography, is that we objectify others for our own sexual gratification. If we are doing the same of somebody in an ordinary picture, it’s pretty much the same sin. Strive to find purity of mind and body, not loopholes.

 

[Cbus]

I’ve always taken Mather 5:27-28 to mean that if you have already chosen in your heart to sin, you are guilty whether or not you ever get the opportunity to actually commit that sin.

Meaning if you look at a married woman with the resolve that you would sleep with her given the chance, you have already committed adultery; however if you look at the same woman with the thought of commuting adultery with her, but are resisting that thought, that would merely be a temptation, and not a sin.

To say that someone would be guilty of adultery, by simply being attracted to a woman, married or not, does not make a lot of sense to me.

Let’s be honest; attraction is just a euphemism for lust to varying degrees.

Unless the OP was, ahem, gratifying himself with these pictures, I wouldn’t consider it being pornography. He would only be guilty of being alive.

But I may be wrong.

 

[Colorad007]

I’ve always taken Mather 5:27-28 to mean that if you have already chosen in your heart to sin, you are guilty whether or not you ever get the opportunity to actually commit that sin.

Meaning if you look at a married woman with the resolve that you would sleep with her given the chance, you have already committed adultery; however if you look at the same woman with the thought of commuting adultery with her, but are resisting that thought, that would merely be a temptation, and not a sin.

To say that someone would be guilty of adultery, by simply being attracted to a woman, married or not, does not make a lot of sense to me.

Let’s be honest; attraction is just a euphemism for lust to varying degrees.

Unless the OP was, ahem, gratifying himself with these pictures, I wouldn’t consider it being pornography. He would only be guilty of being alive.

But I may be wrong.

Lust is not attraction. I’m inevitably attracted by good-looking women, and there is nothing truly reasonable that I could do to mitigate that attraction. But that doesn’t mean I’m lusting. Lust is, as the Catechism puts it, “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” The Catechism puts it this way: “exual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” As you can see, there is nothing disordered about finding a really attractive girl, well, attractive. The disordered part of the Catechism’s definition comes in when you take that initial atttraction and you begin to take pleasure in it, whether that means willfully thinking of immodest things or deliberately “checking her out,” or whatever it is that gives you the jolt that you get when you’re lusting.

All of that said, however, I find it very difficult to practice this outside of a firm custody of your eyes and mind. What that means, practically, is that you are developing a habit of virtue and holiness so that you don’t even want to lust, and it means have very careful control of your eyes so that you’re able to acknowledge attraction and then move on, mentally and physically.

 

[Andrew1980]

I believe the catecism does set aside distinctions on the lust scale. I don’t know the exact number, but I am pretty sure it was along the lines of:

1. Lust
2. Masterbation
3. Fornication (Sex Outside of Marriage)
4. Pornography
5. Prostitution

With each step being a level of sin further. I believe the rationale was as follows:

1. Lust - Act of the mind only.
2. Masterbation - Act of the mind and body, directly stimulating sexual organs for pleasure.
3. Fornication - Directly impacts and includes another in our sin.
4. Pornography - Directly includes another and not in free mutual union. A non-intimate gratification of selfish desires.
5. Prostitution - Directly includes another without free mutual. A non-intimate gratification that directly impacts another person.

I am probably missing a step or two, and it might help if someone looks it up. I remember being surprised pornography was considered worse than fornication, since I was thinking “atleast I’m not really having sex” when ever I was looking at porn. Only to find out what I was doing was actually wose.

Lust is a deadly sin and should be avoided. In my experience, as a recovering addict, trying to fill your lustful desires is like shoveling filth into a never ending abyss. It only gets worse and worse and no matter how much lust you shovel in, your desire for lust never gets filled. In fact, it typically only gets worse. The only thing that works for me is a complete avoidance of lust period. I also have to avoid any near occasions of sin.

For me, avoiding the near occasions of sin, was something I said during the act of contrition, but was something I took little action on. Now it means, staying off most websites, not watching TV, reviewing any movie on a family friendly site before watching and keeping myself out of any areas where I am frequently tempted to lust. It probably seemed daunting at first, and in truth, I only took baby steps to get where I am at. But, now I feel as my life is back and better than ever. Watching little to no TV is one of the best decisions I have made. Its a win-win, I finally have time to get done with my “To-Do” lists and I don’t get innodated with smut every commercial break.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes. The sin of pornography, is that we objectify others for our own sexual gratification. If we are doing the same of somebody in an ordinary picture, it’s pretty much the same sin. Strive to find purity of mind and body, not loopholes.

I would say though that pornography is worse. Looking at a picture or painting of someone in a non-sexual context and lusting after that person does not necessarily victimize the person in the image, and the person did not likely pose for the image with intent to titillate.

On the other hand pornography has real victims other than the person lusting after the pornographic images. The porn industry victimizes women who are often vulnerable either economically or due to dependencies, and are often compelled to engage in the creation of pornography against their will. It is an evil industry that destroys the dignity of two people, the person posing, and the person using the images in a lustful manner.

So while on the surface it is the same sin, the degree is worse in the case of pornography as it drags another person into the sin, placing the fate of two souls, rather than one, at risk.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

I would say though that pornography is worse. Looking at a picture or painting of someone in a non-sexual context and lusting after that person does not necessarily victimize the person in the image, and the person did not likely pose for the image with intent to titillate.

On the other hand pornography has real victims other than the person lusting after the pornographic images. The porn industry victimizes women who are often vulnerable either economically or due to dependencies, and are often compelled to engage in the creation of pornography against their will. It is an evil industry that destroys the dignity of two people, the person posing, and the person using the images in a lustful manner.

So while on the surface it is the same sin, the degree is worse in the case of pornography as it drags another person into the sin, placing the fate of two souls, rather than one, at risk.

This is true, but they really are degrees of the same sin. Many images may not be “pornography”, but they often come close. From the point of view of the one looking at the picture, if you are using a picture to simulate sexual desire in a lustful and impure way, it essentially amounts to pornography. I agree however, that the nature of the image does vary the degree of sinfulness, however, it is still mortally sinful.

 

[wendy_w]

This is true, but they really are degrees of the same sin. Many images may not be “pornography”, but they often come close. From the point of view of the one looking at the picture, if you are using a picture to simulate sexual desire in a lustful and impure way, it essentially amounts to pornography. I agree however, that the nature of the image does vary the degree of sinfulness, however, it is still mortally sinful.

 

[wendy_w]

I see this type of question alot on the forums. The fact of the matter is pornography is very damaging to marriages. I know from experience my marriage has been almost destroyed by it.

 

[Spirithound]

Let’s be honest; attraction is just a euphemism for lust to varying degrees.

Attraction is not automatically lust. Lust seeks to use another for one’s own pleasure, while attraction gives glory to God.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

In light of:

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 5:27-28[/BIBLEDRB]

Would looking at a non-naked, non-sexually explicit picture of a woman (or man if you’re a women) with lust be a mortal sin of pornography? If not, would it be a mortal sin at all?

Yes.