Is this lust?

[Colorad007]

Is it lust for a lawyer (or police officer, jury, etc.) to listen to or read sexually graphic testimony for the sake of learning a particular area of the law? I know that reading sexually explicit material is generally viewed as gravely sinful, and at the very least a real occasion of sin, but is it a sin (or occasion of sin) when you’re doing for professional or academic reasons and have absolutely no intent to lust?

My hunch is that it is akin to a Catholic working as a gynocolegist, but I don’t know. Some cases can be every bit as raunchy as anything you’d read in a pornographic magazine, but it is integral to the case, and therefore your understanding of the law.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bookcat]

Yes…it would seem there may be times when one needs to be exposed to such --perfect example is I would think the police officer, lawyer and judge…if there is a proportionate reason.

They need though to prudently judge how and what must be seen etc…and they need to take good care to make not lust …but rather by prayer, prudence in how such is dealt with, how one looks etc, the Sacraments, self discipline, mortification etc etc etc seek to make the occasion “more remote”…and of course to not consent to any indirect pleasure that might occur…

Of course such is not a “license” to just go look etc

(their confessor can advise them further as well…)

 

[Dtmccameron]

I think…you’ve an odd definition of lust. Lust would exist in the person, not the material, even if the subject matter gone over was impure. As was said, one must be prudent, and surely pray, but I should think the very notion of the impure materials being attached to criminal proceedings would serve as an anaphrodisiac.

Anyway, I spit on the notion that squeamishness should interfere with the execution of justice. Crime is evil, and all evil is ugly and senseless, and leaves its marks and stains, and commands its price. It’s always a grave and dangerous matter to look into the abyss, but I reckon it a far more dangerous and immoral one to ignore it. :twocents:

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it lust for a lawyer (or police officer, jury, etc.) to listen to or read sexually graphic testimony for the sake of learning a particular area of the law? I ?

only if this person is so psychologically, emotionally and spiritually so immature that professional necessity like this would pose an occasion of sin. It is lust when the individual forms lustful thoughts and desires, or takes them into actions, not just when he views such material.

 

[Bookcat]

not just when he views such material.

(though of course one should not be viewing such material ordinarily! such can be sinful even if one does not happen to lust…)

 

[puzzleannie]

(though of course one should not be viewing such material ordinarily! such can be sinful even if one does not happen to lust…)

repeat just viewing such material is not necessarily a sin, and in any case OP does not even define the material in question. If there is a professional reason to look at naked bodies for instance, or at pictures of the, as in a medical case for instance, it is not porn by definition, so it is not sinful. Porn is graphic illustration of a nature designed to arouse lustful feelings thoughts and actions, that is its only purpose (except to make money for those who purview it).

 

[Bookcat]

repeat just viewing such material is not necessarily a sin

My point was that it can be sinful…even if they do not end up lusting.

I already answered the persons question in detail in my first post…I was only adding a line there …for some out there (not you) could think "“Oh ok…so long as I do not lust…I can look at what I want…”