Is it sinful to lust one's wife?

[newbetx]

The bottomline choice that I was driving at was:

a) Is it good for the relationship? (assuming no abuse of marital rights)
or
b) Is it good for my own comfort?
My take on this is:
One has to sacrifice b) in favor of a). Failing to take that sacrifice falls under the classification of being selfish.

 

[CTA1967]

I think an example of lust in marriage would include using contraception, if that’s what we’re getting at.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

The, non-doctrinal, tradition is that Joseph was an elderly widower when he married Mary, and she was a consecrated virgin, so the marriage was intended to be celibate from the beginning. This also ties to the “brothers and sisters” of Christ being Joseph’s children from his first marriage. People at the time would have thought them to be Jesus’s half-siblings.

It is also likely that Joseph died early in the life of Christ. We hear little of him in the Bible, or even the non-canonical early writings.

Again, these are non-definitive, small-t, traditional beliefs.

God Bless

Basically what you are saying is that there is no definitive evidence to support either the age, widowship or ofspring of Joseph before marriage to Mary, nor that Mary was a “consecrated virgin”.

Now with that said, how old was Abraham when Isaac was conceived. Age does not preclude ones prowess in the marital bedroom. As for how long Joseph was around after Jesus was born, we know for a certainty that he was with Mary and Jesus for at least 12 years and probably more as the were all together when they went to Passover when Jesus was 12. Remember, the time when Jesus stayed behind to converse with the elders in the temple.

As far as Mary being the vessel in which the Lord was brought into the world, that task was completed once Jesus was born. And before he was born, yes, absolutely there was no intimate contact between the two during the time Jesus was in Mary’s womb. But once he was born, her task was complete. I believe she would have been released from the obligation she agreed to at that point, to live a normal life a the human wife of a human man and able to accept all the responsibility and purogatives that went along with it.

There would have been nothing in that time after Jesus’s birth to hinder Mary from remaining sinless, is she did, after all Jesus died for everyone’s sins and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There are no exceptions, at least not it the book I’ve been reading.

 

[JRKH]

Basically what you are saying is that there is no definitive evidence to support either the age, widowship or ofspring of Joseph before marriage to Mary, nor that Mary was a “consecrated virgin”.

Now with that said, how old was Abraham when Isaac was conceived. Age does not preclude ones prowess in the marital bedroom. As for how long Joseph was around after Jesus was born, we know for a certainty that he was with Mary and Jesus for at least 12 years and probably more as the were all together when they went to Passover when Jesus was 12. Remember, the time when Jesus stayed behind to converse with the elders in the temple.

As far as Mary being the vessel in which the Lord was brought into the world, that task was completed once Jesus was born. And before he was born, yes, absolutely there was no intimate contact between the two during the time Jesus was in Mary’s womb. But once he was born, her task was complete. I believe she would have been released from the obligation she agreed to at that point, to live a normal life a the human wife of a human man and able to accept all the responsibility and purogatives that went along with it.

There would have been nothing in that time after Jesus’s birth to hinder Mary from remaining sinless, is she did, after all Jesus died for everyone’s sins and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There are no exceptions, at least not it the book I’ve been reading.

I think that the two underlined portions sum up the gist here. You state that there is no positive proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But of course there is no proof that she had “relations” with Joseph either. It is only “What you believe”.
Therefore it is as easy to say that the Church is right in it’s belief of the Blessed Virgin as it is to say the Church is wrong.
However, in this regard, I will accept the Church, for the Church, under it’s authority from Christ Himself, has “Bound” Mary’s Virginity on Earth, and therefore it is “Bound” in heaven.

Peace
James

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Errrrrrrrrrrrr…no. Please read Scripture. The Holy Spirit was not absent until after the crucifixion. How do you suppose the babe in Elizabeth’s womb “lept” for joy? From the very beginning, God sent his Spirit (cf. Gen 1:2).

Perhaps I should have phrased that a different way. The Holy Spirit as pertaining to the New Testatment before Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection interacted differently then it did after the crucifixion.

But my main point is, yes I veiw the situation with Joseph and Mary as a man (human) because they were human, endowed with the same sinful desires as the rest of humanity. I understand that Mary was blessed. Most definately, but did that make her “devine”? She was chosen above all women to bare the Christ Child, a special task asked of her by God. But there were plenty of people that were in similar situations, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Jacob, shall I go on and on and on. All of these people and more were chosen by God for special tasks, did this make them devine? No, just special in the eyes of God. Were they sinless? Absolutely not. Where they holy and did they love God? Absolutely yes. Does Mary’s sexuality detract from her blessedness. Absolutely not. Saying that anyone of a human nature has a right to a divine claim detracts from Christ’s divinity, it lessens the true nature of who he is.

If a rule is going to be applied to one, it needs to be applied to all, or else it just becomes an arbitrary injunction to which one could make a claim and therefore subvert that rule.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Were they sinless?
Absolutely not.

I disagree. Gen 3:15 prophesied to the contrary with regard to the sinlessness of Mary.

You don’t have to be divine to be sinless. You simply need grace, and a strengthened will. I cannot agree with those who have such a pessimistic attitude with regard to the power of grace, which is the power of the enmity which God did indeed place between the woman and the seed of the “woman” of Gen 3:15, and Satan.

Mary was sinless because she was equipped by God to be sinless (as are others). Yet, she had a sacred role unlike any any other … she was the living Ark of the Covenant of the living Word of God. Like the OT Ark of the Covenant, she was made pure, kept pure, and protected from corruption. If God would do this for the OT ark (and He did), we find every reason to believe, through the typological sense of Scritpure, that God would and did do so for Mary as the new Ark of the living Word, for the very reason that of her unique role as the vessel of the Lord.

Scripture also tells us of others who always obeyed God, such as Caleb. God said of Caleb, he “hath followed me fully” (Num 14:24). Caleb wasn’t divine either, yet he had “another spirit with him” (ibid.), given to him by God, such that he “wholly followed the LORD” (Num 32:13, Deut 1:36, Josh 14:14).

God demands that we master sin. God doesn’t demand something of us that is impossible. God does indeed equip us to this end. Mary followed God fully. Others, such as Caleb, also fully obeyed to the Lord. We can move mountains by the grace of God. Surely, given his supernatural grace, we can do something much more desirable as be fully obedient to Him.

Mary was not (nor did she need to be) divine to fully obey the Lord. She was equipped with the same enmity–given to her by God–which her Son also had, an enmity between them and Satan, as prophesied by Gen 3:15.

I believe that there are those given the gift of celibacy. They willingly choose to live in accordance with that gift, “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Matt 19:12). That a proportionate reason for married spouses to remain continent in their marriage, if both are able and willing. Mary and Joseph are among many Catholic spouses throughout history who have indeed given up something good, for something better. Some may think it impossible. I cannot agree with such pessimistic understanding of the power of God’s grace.

 

[Wirraway]

do wives mind being the object of pure lust every once in a while?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

do wives mind being the object of pure lust every once in a while?

I’m sure there are many wifes (and husbands) who like to be lusted after. However, to want to be an object of sin, is a sin.

 

[Wirraway]

I’m sure there are many wifes (and husbands) who like to be lusted after. However, to want to be an object of sin, is a sin.

I suppose it gets down to very fine nuances of intent, but I’d be surprised if many married couples agree.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I suppose it gets down to very fine nuances of intent, but I’d be surprised if many married couples agree.

Agree with what? That wanting to be an object of sin is a sin? Or that there are many husband and wives who like to be the object of lust?

 

[Wirraway]

Agree with what? That wanting to be an object of sin is a sin? Or that there are many husband and wives who like to be the object of lust?

yes to the second. the first seems to be an extravagant definition of sin in this context. human nature being what it is, I believe its common and unremarkable among married couples.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…the first seems to be an extravagant definition of sin…

Yes, sin is common, but that doesn’t make it no longer sin.

The desire to be an object of lust for another is a sin, because it is a desire to tempt another to the sin of lust. Yet, like all sin, it is a sin only insofar as it is a voluntary desire. Involuntary yet disordered desire is called concupiscience, which is not itself a sin. Once concupiscience (disordered desire) is voluntarily consented to, it is a sin.

Culpability for sin is always linked to voluntariness.

So, if I deliberately willed to be an object of lust, that is, an object of temptation for another to sin, then I would sin (will contrary to God’s will) by doing so.

I don’t see how any willful thought/word/deed/omission contrary to God’s will is a “extravagant” definition of sin.

Perhaps you are mixing up lust with a “ordered” desire between spouses. Spouses can surely make themselves attractive to one another. However, to want to a be an object of lust is another matter. Lust is instrinsically evil, so it is always, by its very nature, a sin.

In Rev 2, one of the sins of Jez’ebel is: “beguiling my servants to practice immorality.” That’s what one does when one deliberately desires being an object of lust to another.

 

[Wirraway]

…
Perhaps you are mixing up lust with a “ordered” desire between spouses. Spouses can surely make themselves attractive to one another. However, to want to a be an object of lust is another matter. Lust is instrinsically evil, so it is always, by its very nature, a sin…

perhaps I am. limiting myself to this issue only, and speaking as a married man, I’m at a loss to see how sexual attraction between spouses is sinful. the idea of “orderliness” escapes me, and I’m not trying to be obtuse.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

perhaps I am. limiting myself to this issue only, and speaking as a married man, I’m at a loss to see how sexual attraction between spouses is sinful. the idea of “orderliness” escapes me, and I’m not trying to be obtuse.

Sexual attraction is not the same as lust.

The distinction between “hunger” and “gluttony” may be instructive. Jesus was hungry. Having an “ordered” desire for food means that it is in accord with God’s will. God made us so that we are hungary, when we need to be, in order to prompt us to eat so that we might sustain our health. However, “gluttony” is a disorder, opposed to that which is healthy, and so is contrary to the will of God.

Sexual desire is “ordered” for our benefit by God, just as “hunger” is. However, both sexual desire and hunger can indeed be “unbridled” or “unregulated” or “inordinate” and as such, results in the sins of “gluttony” and “lust.” Both lust and gluttony are examples of sin (vice), an “inordinate” or “disordered” amount of something which is opposed to virtue.

These terms derive from ancient philosophy, so if you are having trouble understanding what is “ordered,” versus what is disordered or inordinate vice, I recommend reading Plato’s The Rebublic and/or Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics to better understand what this all pertains to, particularly what they teach about vice and virtue.

CCC 1866: “Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.”

Sin can indeed result due to an “excess” or inordinate amount of something.

To consider “lust” as indistinguishable from ordinary sexual desire is as linguistically meaningless as considering “gluttony” to be indistiguishable from normal “hunger.”

 

[Wirraway]

thanks for the explanation.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I think that the two underlined portions sum up the gist here. You state that there is no positive proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But of course there is no proof that she had “relations” with Joseph either. It is only “What you believe”.
Therefore it is as easy to say that the Church is right in it’s belief of the Blessed Virgin as it is to say the Church is wrong.
However, in this regard, I will accept the Church, for the Church, under it’s authority from Christ Himself, has “Bound” Mary’s Virginity on Earth, and therefore it is “Bound” in heaven.

Peace
James

Thus comes the question that has been in my mind. “Is this belief essential to salvation?” I absolutely believe it is not. But there are those who believe it is. And if it is, then the death and resurrection of Christ is diminished and his scarificial blood made of no effect.

 

[JRKH]

Thus comes the question that has been in my mind. “Is this belief essential to salvation?” I absolutely believe it is not. But there are those who believe it is. And if it is, then the death and resurrection of Christ is diminished and his scarificial blood made of no effect.

I’m sure that others will be able to better answer this question but I shall make an attempt.

The Term “Believe” can take on different aspects.
We can “Believe” something because we’ve witnessed it ourselves.
We can “Believe” something because we have studied on it and are convinced of it’s truth.

We can Also “Believe” Something because Someone we Trust tells us it is so.
There is also a “Belief” whereby we can “accept” something as True even though we don’t fully understand it, have not witnessed it, and indeed cannot witness it, but rather must take another’s word for it.

A simple example of this is the solar system. From our perspective the sun rises. moves across the sky and sets while we stand still. Yet the scientific community tells us that what we see as rising and setting is, in reality, our moving in relation to the sun and not the sun moving in relation to us.
We accept this explanation and the proofs even though we cannot personally “witness” the belief.
I know that this is an overly simple example but it illistrates the basic point.

To relate this to Dogmatic Declarations of the Church, i.e. necessary for salvation and how and why we accept them.
First of all is the acceptance of The Church as Christ Established and having Christ’s own Protection and Authority. This Authority which includes the Authority to Bind and Loose. This means we accept the teachings of the Church as being from Christ Himself and we obey them as such.
Secondly we look at the idea of “Believe” as we examined it above. The Church teaches that we need to accept the Dogmatic Teachings as necessary for salvation. Now depending upon my “intellectual capacity”, or ability to research the Dogmas, or other factors, I may not fully understand a teaching, but I can accept the teaching as valid because The Church teaches it and The Church has Authority Directly From Christ.

Finally, as relates to your final statement:
“then the death and resurrection of Christ is diminished and his sacrificial blood made of no effect”
When we accept Christ as our Savior, we accept a certain lifestyle and set of beliefs and behaviors connected with it. If we do not accept these beliefs then our profession is meaningless. For example, if we profess Christ, but continue to lie and cheat, our profession is of no use. Does this Change the Salvic Quality of Christ’s Sacrifice? Of course it doesn’t. It effects OUR ability to utilize the Graces that comes with acceptance and repentance.

We accept, whether Catholic or Protestant, that the Teachings of Christ contained in the gospels are necessary to Salvation. Love of God, and neighbor - Faith, Hope, Charity, - The Beatitudes and so forth. We accept these things as pointing out how we should live as followers of Christ. Are these things “necessary” for salvation? Of course they are. Not that we will follow them perfectly as Christ did, but because Christ told us that this is how we should live.
Now we also believe and accept, as Catholics, that Christ founded a visible and authoritative Church upon Peter and gave that Church Authority. He even told us to abide by the Church’s decisions even if we don’t fully agree with or understand them. (See: Matthew 16: 15-18) (Tell it to the Church) Therefore, we accept the Dogma’s of the Church as coming directly from
Christ through His Church just as we accept those teachings found in the Gospels. Again, does this diminish the Salvic effect of the Cross? Of course not. It only effects our ability to fully participate in that Salvic act.

If we have serious doubts about a dogma, we should attempt to resolve that doubt by either reading the pertinant documents directly, or speaking with someone knowledgable who can give us good spiritual direction.
If we still have doubts, we should submit our will to God through His Church, just as Christ commands us in the above passage. We accept the Teaching because we accept that Christ is with His Church and He wishes for us to accept and believe this teaching.

I apologize that this is a bit disjointed, my DW is not having a good morning and I’m in and out.
I hope this helps some in understanding.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Is it always a sin to ‘lust’, or have sexual thoughts or fantasies about one’s own wife?
Say if you haven’t been intimate for a while, or maybe you are physically a part for long periods of time.
Not that you are just thinking of her as an object, or because you just want sex, but becuase you love her and want to be ‘with’ her?

I think you would benefit from watching Created and Redeemed on EWTN at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday. He discusses the encyclical The THeology of the body by JPll. It’s about the physical and spiritual relationship between man and woman. It discusses the difference between lusting after your wife and wanting to physically experience your love with her.