T
twf
Guest
Is a “lingering” look always sinful? I don’t see how it could be. I can take a lingering look at a beautiful car without falling into the sin of greed of envy of my brother’s goods.
- Status
T
ThatGuy
Guest
When you look at a woman the same way you look at a car you are treating her as an object. Cars are objects, people aren’t. That’s the way I see it.
S
SarahR
Guest
“Looking lustfully” is a grave matter.
Taking a second look, a longer look, without lusting can be a near occasion of sin.
Taking a second look, a longer look, without lusting can be a near occasion of sin.
S
syrinx2112
Guest
This is my understanding of this subject. Pleeeease correct me if you think I’m wrong, especially if you can back it up! I myself find it very hard to look away when I see a woman (she doesn’t even have to be pretty) that is wearing something revealing or leaves little to the imagination. I am talking about body parts here, just for clarity. But at the same time, the thought never even enters my head like “man, I wish I could have that!” I have no desire whatsoever to be unfaithful to my wife. I’m just looking. Yes, I know it is a sin, but I don’t think it is mortal in those circumstances. I am not making excuses, but the way girls dress these days, I would literally have to wear blinders or never leave the house! Maybe this is a test from the Almighty, and the harder it is to look away and I make myself do just that, the more I will be in His favor?
A
alongexpected
Guest
This is absolutely ridiculous. Please use common sense here, people. Do you really think that checking people out because they’re attractive is a terrible thing to do? Do you really think that someone who watches Dancing With the Stars and is sexually attracted to all of them and then dies is going to Hell? (That’s everything I’ve been taught…one unconfessed mortal sin leaves you totally cut off from God and that means Hell…)
Besides the quote from Jesus about looking at a woman with lust in his heart (and I think one from St. Paul, too), do you people have anything to back up this belief with? Did it ever occur to you that maybe things got mis-translated or mis-interpreted? I seriously think that if Jesus came back today and read this board he’d be dumbfounded that people were spending so much of their time and energy worrying about such mundane details as this “sin”.
R
RachelKH
Guest
This topic is very interesting to me, as my husband says he has trained his thoughts not to lust, but still allows his eyes to look at, be drawn to, the chest and bottom of every attractive woman he comes across. This unfortunately includes at least our oldest daughter (16yo) who is attractive, but dresses not provocatively or too tightly or revealingly, but still in style for teens. He says his looking is not wrong, just that his eyes are drawn there of their own accord and he has no control. I feel that in the case of his daughters, there should be no way his eyes should be drawn there – that a father’s eyes can’t do that!!! Can’t you men realistically take control of your eyes and not focus on body parts, at least your own daughters? I need to understand.
A
alongexpected
Guest
Um, you may want to have a serious discussion with your husband about this.
R
RachelKH
Guest
we’ve been having serious discussions and we are at a standoff.
B
Bookcat
Guest
This is from Jimmy Akin (chief Apologist at CA)
jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html
A reader writes:
This is regarding “looking”.
I am very clear that obviously pornography is a grave matter.
I also am clear that deliberately engaging in lustful thoughts, lustful desires, or trying to arouse yourself (outside marriage) with full knowledge and full consent is also mortal sin. Of course thoughts without these aspects are either venial or not a sin.
What I still struggle with is the question of “deliberately looking at an attractive or shapely girl”. And liking to do so.
I had understood that one could deliberately look at an attractive girl and admire her beauty -even the beauty of her form- and that the pleasure one finds in seeing her beauty and shape was not sinful to consent to and one could just ignore any “reactions of concupiscence” that happen.
Of course one must take care …and know yourself …as well as at times use custody of the eyes --particularly if she is very immodestly dressed.
Also that one could even look at a work of art that is nude etc (that is not lustfully done --that shows the dignity of the person) and admire the form and beauty and ignore any “reactions of concupiscence”.
Is this treating a girl as an object? Am I wrong in doing this? Is it sinful?
----Answer
In this context, treating someone “as an object” mean improperly treating a person as an instrument of sexual gratification and thus not properly recognizing the dignity of the person.
There are also other ways one can (non-sexually) “object”-ify a person, e.g., treating a spouse as merely a means of getting certain tasks done (breadwinning, household management, whatever).
In general, treating someone merely as a means to an end and not respecting the fundamental dignity of the person results in the objectification of that person. Sexual objectification is just one species in a larger genus.
But you know what doesn’t belong to this genus?
Recognizing a person’s good points.
If someone is beautiful or handsome or smart or prudent or a good breadwinner or a good household manager or a good square dance caller or has any other good points, it’s fine to recognize and appreciate those facts.
If they are manifest, it would even be contrary to reason not to do so.
So recognizing and appreciating the beauty of the human form–in general or in a specific case–is not a sin.
At least you couldn’t guess it from the statues and paintings that the folks at the Vatican have all over the place. They sure seem to be on board with this idea.
I mean, just look at the Sistine Chapel!
Just look at the Last Judgment!
And this is where they elect popes!
So it seems to me that one is on pretty safe ground saying that it’s okay and not-automatically-objectifying if you recognize and appreciate physical beauty or any other good attribute that a person has.
It becomes objectifying if you reduce the person’s worth to just their good or useful qualities.
Of course, in the area of appreciating physical beauty–especially of the opposite sex–we have to be careful.
It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
These represent different levels of moral risk, and the greater the peril, the more stringent efforts must be taken to avoid it or escape from it.
Because people are different and subject to different levels of temptation, they will have to determine based on their own self-knowledge and personal history what situations are too dangerous for them to allow themselves to be in.
For some–particularly males at a particular stage of life–even looking at artistic representations of nudes may be too much.
As normal in risk management–which is what avoiding temptation is, since it’s not possible to completely eliminate the risk of temptation (given the mind’s ability to produce temptation on its own)–one must avoid two extremes: under-estimating the risk that a situation poses and over-estimating it.
For most people the laxist approach is the greater danger, which is why Jesus told us to seek the narrow path.
For other people, particularly those subject to scrupulous tendencies, the rigorist approach is a danger.
Neither approach is what we are called to.
What one must do is evaluate the risk a particular course of action poses for one and act accordingly.
In some cases temptation will arise despite one’s efforts. That’s the nature of risk. As long as the risk isn’t zero–and it never is in this life–sometimes temptation will arise.
The thing to do when that happens is relax, ignore the temptation, and move on to something else.
The “relax” part is important, because if one allows oneself to become anxious about temptation then it only reinforces the temptation.
Temptation is deprived of its power if you refuse to get anxious about it and simply move on.
Because I’m not the reader, I can’t say precisely what courses of action are too risky in his case, but I can say that it’s not sinful to simply recognize and appreciate beauty. (As opposed to dwelling on or studiously contemplating the details of a particular person’s physical form, which is going to increase risk.)
I can say that it is not sinful to be exposed to any and all levels of non-zero risk. (Zero risk of temptation is impossible in this life.)
And I can say that if he tries to instantly avert his eyes from every single pretty girl he sees then he will foster an anxiety about temptation that will actually feed the temptation he is seeking to minimize.
The better thing to do is avoid situations that are known to be dangerous (i.e., that pose a significant risk of significant temptation) and to otherwise relax and move on when temptation does appear.
jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html
A reader writes:
This is regarding “looking”.
I am very clear that obviously pornography is a grave matter.
I also am clear that deliberately engaging in lustful thoughts, lustful desires, or trying to arouse yourself (outside marriage) with full knowledge and full consent is also mortal sin. Of course thoughts without these aspects are either venial or not a sin.
What I still struggle with is the question of “deliberately looking at an attractive or shapely girl”. And liking to do so.
I had understood that one could deliberately look at an attractive girl and admire her beauty -even the beauty of her form- and that the pleasure one finds in seeing her beauty and shape was not sinful to consent to and one could just ignore any “reactions of concupiscence” that happen.
Of course one must take care …and know yourself …as well as at times use custody of the eyes --particularly if she is very immodestly dressed.
Also that one could even look at a work of art that is nude etc (that is not lustfully done --that shows the dignity of the person) and admire the form and beauty and ignore any “reactions of concupiscence”.
Is this treating a girl as an object? Am I wrong in doing this? Is it sinful?
----Answer
In this context, treating someone “as an object” mean improperly treating a person as an instrument of sexual gratification and thus not properly recognizing the dignity of the person.
There are also other ways one can (non-sexually) “object”-ify a person, e.g., treating a spouse as merely a means of getting certain tasks done (breadwinning, household management, whatever).
In general, treating someone merely as a means to an end and not respecting the fundamental dignity of the person results in the objectification of that person. Sexual objectification is just one species in a larger genus.
But you know what doesn’t belong to this genus?
Recognizing a person’s good points.
If someone is beautiful or handsome or smart or prudent or a good breadwinner or a good household manager or a good square dance caller or has any other good points, it’s fine to recognize and appreciate those facts.
If they are manifest, it would even be contrary to reason not to do so.
So recognizing and appreciating the beauty of the human form–in general or in a specific case–is not a sin.
At least you couldn’t guess it from the statues and paintings that the folks at the Vatican have all over the place. They sure seem to be on board with this idea.
I mean, just look at the Sistine Chapel!
Just look at the Last Judgment!
And this is where they elect popes!
So it seems to me that one is on pretty safe ground saying that it’s okay and not-automatically-objectifying if you recognize and appreciate physical beauty or any other good attribute that a person has.
It becomes objectifying if you reduce the person’s worth to just their good or useful qualities.
Of course, in the area of appreciating physical beauty–especially of the opposite sex–we have to be careful.
It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
These represent different levels of moral risk, and the greater the peril, the more stringent efforts must be taken to avoid it or escape from it.
Because people are different and subject to different levels of temptation, they will have to determine based on their own self-knowledge and personal history what situations are too dangerous for them to allow themselves to be in.
For some–particularly males at a particular stage of life–even looking at artistic representations of nudes may be too much.
As normal in risk management–which is what avoiding temptation is, since it’s not possible to completely eliminate the risk of temptation (given the mind’s ability to produce temptation on its own)–one must avoid two extremes: under-estimating the risk that a situation poses and over-estimating it.
For most people the laxist approach is the greater danger, which is why Jesus told us to seek the narrow path.
For other people, particularly those subject to scrupulous tendencies, the rigorist approach is a danger.
Neither approach is what we are called to.
What one must do is evaluate the risk a particular course of action poses for one and act accordingly.
In some cases temptation will arise despite one’s efforts. That’s the nature of risk. As long as the risk isn’t zero–and it never is in this life–sometimes temptation will arise.
The thing to do when that happens is relax, ignore the temptation, and move on to something else.
The “relax” part is important, because if one allows oneself to become anxious about temptation then it only reinforces the temptation.
Temptation is deprived of its power if you refuse to get anxious about it and simply move on.
Because I’m not the reader, I can’t say precisely what courses of action are too risky in his case, but I can say that it’s not sinful to simply recognize and appreciate beauty. (As opposed to dwelling on or studiously contemplating the details of a particular person’s physical form, which is going to increase risk.)
I can say that it is not sinful to be exposed to any and all levels of non-zero risk. (Zero risk of temptation is impossible in this life.)
And I can say that if he tries to instantly avert his eyes from every single pretty girl he sees then he will foster an anxiety about temptation that will actually feed the temptation he is seeking to minimize.
The better thing to do is avoid situations that are known to be dangerous (i.e., that pose a significant risk of significant temptation) and to otherwise relax and move on when temptation does appear.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Couple of things that may help. Men are visual. One can seek a kind of ‘custody of the eyes’ and try not looking - but this does not always work. In fact if one tries too much --it can make things worse *see jimmys article at end.
Morally theologians have referred to the prima of the prima --the ‘first of the first’ that which happens at first before being so much aware of it. This is not a sin.
A man’s eyes may as your husband says – just automatically look–or be drawn–when they see the female form. Some can gain more control of this than others --and one can when one becomes aware of it --perhaps -look at say the persons face…
(we are talking not about deliberately looking to lust or something)
The female form is meant to be attractive–of course should be modest as you say–but it is attractive. When one sees the form one can choose to treat the person as a person and not ‘lust’ after them (and as their daughter if this is the case) or one can lust --which is of course sin. The eyes of men see…and we do not always have full control over them. One seeks to always look at others with modesty --but this does not mean that one can always control the fact that ones eyes are drawn to the female form in a strong way. Also the effects of original sin enter here too.
Of course your husband’s confessor can help him determine what if anything more he needs to do or not do…knowing the specifics --but from what you say – it seems rather automatic and he does not have problems with thoughts or something…so do not interperate this wrongly…
I am not saying that he should intentionally be "checking his daughters out’ but that is not what he is doing as you say…
Remember --you are a woman. You can not understand fully what it is to be a man anymore than he can understand what it means to be a woman…or a mother…
This from jimmy akin can also be helpful
jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html
R
RachelKH
Guest
but admiring a woman – why do your eyes go to bust and butt, not face, if it is not lust??? how can my dds feel comfortable when he drops his eyes to those places? this is so icky – this feels so wrong – this is where we are at odds.
B
Bookcat
Guest
His eyes may see the form and automatically shift to the sexual values of the body --for they are part of the powerful attraction of the woman. the sexual values of the body are not ‘icky’ they are attractive and beautiful. the person should not be reduced to just those ‘parts’ but the eyes may register these aspects strongly. and remember if it is ‘something that happens to him and not his deliberate act’ it is not something he ‘does’. he does not drop down his eyes…and he may have felt uncomfortable …
this is all based on what you have written…that it is ‘automatic’
As Pope John Paul put it before he was Pope --one must bind up tightly these responses to the the sexual values —to the person.
The person of the female sex – has certain sexual values – and the man will notice them --it just happens. even if he looks away right away or focus on the face --he will have noticed the form…then he has to say ‘this is a person to be loved…not used’.
this is different than starring deliberately and thinking lustful thoughts…very different.
A man simply cannot not notice in a sense. he can learn to look away when it is good to do. I as a married man --and with a private vow of chastity according to my state even-- still notice the form of other women. If I am paying the bill at my dentist and the girl behind the counter has a shapely form – i will not see a sack of potatoes-- but i will try to set aside the feelings of attraction and focus on her person and being faithful of course to my wife. but i can not denigh that my first glances beheld her form and i felt attraction --or even when i walked into the room I may have first noticed that she had a nice form --women have curves…but then during the conversation i do not focus on her whole form but just on her face if i can.
one can not expect oneself or another not to have a reaction…but it is what one does then…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes of course …one must. but again i am speaking of what ‘happens to a man’ not him going to the park and trying to see all the women he can…or deliberately staring at a persons sexual values in a lustful or immodest way. one can exercise a kind of custody of the eyes. but the first of the first is not so easy to avoid. Some contemplative monks actually do not allow women at all to visit…they would rather avoid even the automatic first of the first…
we just do not have since original sin the complete control over our passions or even our eyes…but we can choose to look away if it is good and reasonable or a near occasion once we become aware of it…at least at some point.
but a Christian father will know he has beautiful daughters. not that he will stare at their "body parts’ as you say --but they know they have beautiful young daughters. And they will treat them accordingly.
But his eyes may before his knowledge or will – just go to the shapeliness when she walks into the room …again without his wanting it.
but with time he may train his eyes to do so less by willing each time to look at her face – then with repeated acts in this way – he can acquire perhaps much of the time --the ability and habit of looking direct at her face…but this takes time…and can make things more stresseful and streined. it has to be done with a kind of gentleness and interior sense of humor.
Remember too --that some men have more of a difficulty with this than others.
but in any case the first of the first is not very voluntary and thus not sin…and men can learn to raise the material of this attraction to the diginity of the person and virtue
be try to understand and if all else is good… be patient… i imagine he is not staring at her sexual values once he becomes aware of it…
it is not ‘icky’ but the struggle of men in a fallen state…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Bearing mind the things i said before…this does not give one free reign to just look unreasonably etc …one ought to keep a real and reasonable custody of the eyes.
and each man must know himself …
and each man must know himself …
B
Bookcat
Guest
A good example of custody of the eyes that is good…
Last night i went shopping and of course i noticed some beautiful women…but then I made a conscious decision to focus on my shopping and thus have my eyes keep to task…so when i say a nice looking woman walking my way --because i was able to prepare for this --i did not look up but kept looking for what i was buying.
So I am not saying that one can not control or order ones eyes to a certain degree.
But that one can not always …and there is that ‘first of the first’ that may just happen. And if one is living with some one --one can not always look at something else --nor should one (one has to see the person).
but one makes “the person” the focus and does not worry with the fact that ones eyes may at times not do what you expect of them and that the ‘first of the first’ of attraction etc may happen…but do what one reasonablely can of course…
i should note too that if a girl is immodestly dressed etc one has more reason to look elsewhere…
Also by saying there is no sin in the first of the first …I do not mean that if one goes say to the beach with unguarded eyes etc that there can be no sin…then one may be inviting trouble of perhaps immodest looks etc…one has to know oneself and ones circumstances…
on the other hand with a person dressed modestly --say you see them on the street --it is not necessarly a sin to take a second look …it depends on the kind of look etc…
(I say this cause some say ‘second look is a venial sin or worse if there is lust’ but a second look does not mean there is a sin just cause it is a second look. Even watching a normal movie one will see the nice looking modest girl more than once
Again i refer all to the jimmy akin link in previous post
Last night i went shopping and of course i noticed some beautiful women…but then I made a conscious decision to focus on my shopping and thus have my eyes keep to task…so when i say a nice looking woman walking my way --because i was able to prepare for this --i did not look up but kept looking for what i was buying.
So I am not saying that one can not control or order ones eyes to a certain degree.
But that one can not always …and there is that ‘first of the first’ that may just happen. And if one is living with some one --one can not always look at something else --nor should one (one has to see the person).
but one makes “the person” the focus and does not worry with the fact that ones eyes may at times not do what you expect of them and that the ‘first of the first’ of attraction etc may happen…but do what one reasonablely can of course…
i should note too that if a girl is immodestly dressed etc one has more reason to look elsewhere…
Also by saying there is no sin in the first of the first …I do not mean that if one goes say to the beach with unguarded eyes etc that there can be no sin…then one may be inviting trouble of perhaps immodest looks etc…one has to know oneself and ones circumstances…
on the other hand with a person dressed modestly --say you see them on the street --it is not necessarly a sin to take a second look …it depends on the kind of look etc…
(I say this cause some say ‘second look is a venial sin or worse if there is lust’ but a second look does not mean there is a sin just cause it is a second look. Even watching a normal movie one will see the nice looking modest girl more than once
Again i refer all to the jimmy akin link in previous post
D
dowiecritic
Guest
Fulton Sheen on temptation, if you want to be a bit scholastic about it: youtube.com/watch?v=AKcxm-VhxUw He doesn’t just say “you must try harder”, he actually gives a helpful way to go about it.
My sometimes PP says being tempted is not a sin, but giving in to temptation is.
Again, Fulton Sheen puts it in his inimitable way: youtube.com/watch?v=Qb4_EPxCzUc (about seven minutes into part 2, but it’s worth listening to the whole thing).
We know that little mortal sins are still mortal sins, and that mere venial sins do add up. But we also know that we have the means to be reconciled when it goes wrong, even if it has to be seventy times seven times (funnily enough, newer translations of Mt 18:22 only go as far as seventy-seven – who says standards are slipping).
I hope this helps, I for one need all the help I can get.
David.
My sometimes PP says being tempted is not a sin, but giving in to temptation is.
Again, Fulton Sheen puts it in his inimitable way: youtube.com/watch?v=Qb4_EPxCzUc (about seven minutes into part 2, but it’s worth listening to the whole thing).
We know that little mortal sins are still mortal sins, and that mere venial sins do add up. But we also know that we have the means to be reconciled when it goes wrong, even if it has to be seventy times seven times (funnily enough, newer translations of Mt 18:22 only go as far as seventy-seven – who says standards are slipping).
I hope this helps, I for one need all the help I can get.
David.
A
Angel7
Guest
What if you imagine a tought that I guess isn’t appropriate. However it doesn’t cause arousal, or doesn’t cause any “I would if I could…” thoughts. What if you simply enjoy the thought, or the beauty of the thought. Without an accompanied sinful desire for?
J
jongenaro
Guest
I tend to see pictures of celebrities, some with their backs turned where you can see a certain body feature. At first there is a sexual arousal but if anything lustful comes up, I try my best to ignore it and offer it up to God. But I keep on looking at these body features because I’m attracted to them. Is that a mortal sin? I’m not sure whether or not I’m committing lust. Could someone please answer me because I’m really confused and am miserable because I have no idea what state my soul is in and I just went to Confession recently and don’t know if I need to go back. Hopefully the priest doesn’t get sick of seeing me too much.
S
sidbrown
Guest
That seems right. I see young women at the altar of God dancing around during the Mass of the Los Angeles Cardinal and they are wearing provocative clothing and dressing provocatively. Why does the Church allow this?
If this is a mortal sin, why should not Catholic women be required to dress modestly like the Muslim women do? Women have to bear some responsilbilty for wearing provocative clothing.
- Status