Is lust a sin?

[A_Augustinus]

Well- penance is a sacrament. But it does not meand God wants us to sin, and so need to use the sacrament of sin.

Now, lust is a sin. As a result of lust (i.e. sexual desire), people get married. Marriage as a sacrament was instituted as a remedy for the sin of lust.

Yes, just as it is better not to sin, and not to need the sacrament of penance, so it is better not to be succumb to the force of lust, and to remain celibate.

I believe your premise is incorrect. It simply isn’t possible that sexual desire = the sin of lust. Sexual desire is often compared to hunger or thirst, and for good reason. Sexual desire is simply a physical appetite of the body. As such, it has no moral character in itself. A sin requires conscious deliberation and choice. Thus, sexual desire cannot be a sin in itself.

Assuming we can agree on that point, let’s move on to the next logical progression. Suppose we define the sin of lust as a conscious choice to experience or feel sexual desire. Is that a plausible definition? In this case, I think it’s important to ask: What is the moral basis for saying that willingly sustaining this physical appetite is sinful? If a hungry man willingly revels in his desire to have a good meal, has he sinned? If not, why would we define the willful experience of one physical appetite as sinful, while another is not?

In most cases I can think of, we define a willful desire as sinful when its object is sinful. For example, If a person desires to destroy his brother’s reputation, and he willingly revels in the desire, he has committed a sin because his desire is directed toward something morally wrong. Therefore, if we say that any willful acceptance of sexual desire is sinful, we are implying that sexual intercourse is always sinful. The church has never taught this, and it would be contrary to natural reason. Humans are innately sexual beings. It would be exceedingly strange for God to create two complimentary sexes if sexual intercourse was not part of his plan.

But if sexual intercourse is not always sinful, that seems to imply that it’s not always wrong to willingly engage in sexual desire. If that’s true, the question becomes: When is sexual intercourse morally acceptable? The church has always taught that it is acceptable within marriage. Of course, it also states that any use of sex that is contrary to love is morally wrong. Therefore, clearly, it is not morally wrong for a married person to willingly experience sexual desire in a way that is compatible with love.

One could object that any willful sexual desire for an unmarried person is sinful, but as long as the desire is ordered toward marriage and love, that seems incorrect. Once again, a willful desire is sinful only when its object is sinful. Therefore, willful desire for fornication would be immoral, but willful desire for sex within marriage, as long as it is compatible with love, is not sinful. Thus, there is no sin for an engaged couple to willingly desire sex after they are married.

 

[Qoeleth]

I believe your premise is incorrect. It simply isn’t possible that sexual desire = the sin of lust. Sexual desire is often compared to hunger or thirst, and for good reason. Sexual desire is simply a physical appetite of the body. As such, it has no moral character in itself. A sin requires conscious deliberation and choice. Thus, sexual desire cannot be a sin in itself.

Assuming we can agree on that point, let’s move on to the next logical progression. Suppose we define the sin of lust as a conscious choice to experience or feel sexual desire. Is that a plausible definition? In this case, I think it’s important to ask: What is the moral basis for saying that willingly sustaining this physical appetite is sinful? If a hungry man willingly revels in his desire to have a good meal, has he sinned? If not, why would we define the willful experience of one physical appetite as sinful, while another is not?

In most cases I can think of, we define a willful desire as sinful when its object is sinful. For example, If a person desires to destroy his brother’s reputation, and he willingly revels in the desire, he has committed a sin because his desire is directed toward something morally wrong. Therefore, if we say that any willful acceptance of sexual desire is sinful, we are implying that sexual intercourse is always sinful. The church has never taught this, and it would be contrary to natural reason. Humans are innately sexual beings. It would be exceedingly strange for God to create two complimentary sexes if sexual intercourse was not part of his plan.

But if sexual intercourse is not always sinful, that seems to imply that it’s not always wrong to willingly engage in sexual desire. If that’s true, the question becomes: When is sexual intercourse morally acceptable? The church has always taught that it is acceptable within marriage. Of course, it also states that any use of sex that is contrary to love is morally wrong. Therefore, clearly, it is not morally wrong for a married person to willingly experience sexual desire in a way that is compatible with love.

One could object that any willful sexual desire for an unmarried person is sinful, but as long as the desire is ordered toward marriage and love, that seems incorrect. Once again, a willful desire is sinful only when its object is sinful. Therefore, willful desire for fornication would be immoral, but willful desire for sex within marriage, as long as it is compatible with love, is not sinful. Thus, there is no sin for an engaged couple to willingly desire sex after they are married.

When ‘lust’ was declared to de a deadly sin, it means, simply ‘sexual desire’. Little by little, there has been a ‘definitional creep’, in which people say it means ‘disordered sexual desire’. I think this ‘definitional creep’ has been promoted by those who are not comfortable with the teaching of the primitive Church- that it is better to be celibate. The Church Fathers were all quite clear on this.

Lust means sexual desire, and nothing else. The meaning cannot be changed just to match ‘New Age’ theology.

 

[A_Augustinus]

If that is true, there are many discrepancies to explain, as outlined in my last post. It makes no philosophical or theological sense to posit that sexual desire = the sin of lust.

 

[A_Augustinus]

Furthermore, what evidence is there for “definition creep” on the sin of lust? Here’s how St. Thomas Aquinas refers to lust in the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 154 Art. 1:

the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason.

That sounds like the same basic idea expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As near as I can tell from some searching online, the earliest formulation of the seven deadly sins was by the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 300s AD. He enumerated “eight negative thoughts,” and the Greek word he used was “porneia,” which is often translated “sexual immorality.” Eventually, this evolved into the Latin word “luxuria,” which is a more general term for intense desire.

The basic information is given on Wikipedia’s entry for the seven deadly sins, but if you doubt Wikipedia, here’s a journal article corroborating the writings of Evagrius Ponticus:

muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v019/19.3.corrigan.html

 

[Qoeleth]

Furthermore, what evidence is there for “definition creep” on the sin of lust? Here’s how St. Thomas Aquinas refers to lust in the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 154 Art. 1:

That sounds like the same basic idea expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As near as I can tell from some searching online, the earliest formulation of the seven deadly sins was by the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 300s AD. He enumerated “eight negative thoughts,” and the Greek word he used was “porneia,” which is often translated “sexual immorality.” Eventually, this evolved into the Latin word “luxuria,” which is a more general term for intense desire.

The basic information is given on Wikipedia’s entry for the seven deadly sins, but if you doubt Wikipedia, here’s a journal article corroborating the writings of Evagrius Ponticus:

muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v019/19.3.corrigan.html

Well, I stand corrected. I was only thinking as far back as the Latin. If ‘lust’ (luxuria) is being used as a translation of ‘porneia’, yes, it should be immoral desire, rather than desire in general.

Mea maxima culpa.

 

[JRKH]

If that is true, there are many discrepancies to explain, as outlined in my last post. It makes no philosophical or theological sense to posit that sexual desire = the sin of lust.

Furthermore, what evidence is there for “definition creep” on the sin of lust? Here’s how St. Thomas Aquinas refers to lust in the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 154 Art. 1:

That sounds like the same basic idea expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As near as I can tell from some searching online, the earliest formulation of the seven deadly sins was by the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 300s AD. He enumerated “eight negative thoughts,” and the Greek word he used was “porneia,” which is often translated “sexual immorality.” Eventually, this evolved into the Latin word “luxuria,” which is a more general term for intense desire.

The basic information is given on Wikipedia’s entry for the seven deadly sins, but if you doubt Wikipedia, here’s a journal article corroborating the writings of Evagrius Ponticus:

muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v019/19.3.corrigan.html

Thanks for your research and clear explanation. This helps us all a lot.

Peace
James

 

[zro_x]

Fair enough…but if he is speaking for God…Then God wanted it to be clear that these were not “commands” but recommendations…recommendations that fit a particular time, place and circumstance…otherwise, why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to write these things as “opinion” instead of commands…

Yes, I can see where there is confusion. Paul writes this part of his letter as if it is personal opinion, but they are in scripture, so they should transcend cultures and time.
We may have to leave Corinthians alone. However, I have found a different quote in the gospel from Jesus about this. Bilop actually posted it earlier, but I didn’t close enough attention to it.

[11] Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

meaning marriage is reserved for those who can’t take it.

See - I would disagree. Since Paul says that without Love we are nothing…There is no gift from God that that does not stem from Love.
So a person may be able to juggle, but the “gift” in that juggling would be in how he uses it for the Glory of God. The person who volunteers to juggle for children on a cancer ward, bringing smiles to everyone’s faces, has a unique gift…not a better one than say the doctors who are gifted with the ability to directly treat the cancer…

I see where you’re coming from, and of course you’re right. All parts of the body of Christ have their place and vital function. However, the doctor is able to do more physical good than the juggler is. likewise, the unmarried person is able to do more physical good and become more spirital than the married person.

Not familiar with that other thread…And I don’t want you to think that I am trying to “beat you up” here.

Don’t worry. I don’t think that at all.

I think that to a degree you are correct in what you say here, though I would perhaps phrase it differently…After all, we are also called to “control ourselves” in marriage as well. Lust (as defined by the Church), even in marriage, is still a no-no.

good point. I didn’t really clarify that earlier. I think that those in marriage are able to fight lust and control themselves where they can’t outside of marriage. I believe another poster commented that marriage was the cure for lust.

I’m glad we’ve had this conversation. I’ve learned from it.

Me too.

 

[zro_x]

Since this applies to both the thread “Thesis: I should not have a pet” and “Is lust a sin”, I’m going to post this on both of them.

In “Is Lust a Sin”, I supported the idea that God originally created man for marriage, but after the fall, It became our duty to try to alleviate the effects of sin in the world to the best of our ability, and that we must use all our resources of time and money in order to accomplish this task. This means no luxury, and no leisure. Since married people have a responsibility to look after each other and their children, it detracted from this mission. As having a pet usually costs time and money, it also detracts from this mission. However, another affect of the fall was that the sexual desires of some became impossible to control. God calls these and only these people to marriage because only in marriage can they find a place for these desires, and marriage is necessary for procreation. Thus, those who are married provide an important function(the continuation of the human race), but a less important function than those whose primary task is to alliviate the effects of original sin and come closer to God without familial distrations. This seems to be supported by some parts of scripture.

Then Scottgun and Marc Anthony, posters in “thesis: I should not have a pet” called my attention to the fact that the church catechism says that it is fine to use animals for work and leisure! Frizzgig, in the same thread, pointed out that even God rested on the seventh day, which reminded me that we are actually commanded to rest every seven days. I was not sure if I could reconcile these two things with my point of view, but when I found the answer it was surprisingly simple. After the fall, it became physically impossible for now weak human beings to work for God at all times. We all have to have a certain amount of leisure time, just as some are called to marriage because they can’t restrain their desires. However, I do not know of any place in the bible or infallible Catholic doctrine that proclaims that we must have luxury, so in most occasions, it still be a minimally venial sin to own pets.