Looking is immoral!

[Rocks_91]

Well, you can believe what you want, to your own detriment. I say I believe what Alphonso says, that there is always the chance that a look can inspire sin. Remember, it takes only ONE mortal sin to die spiritually. Would you take that chance? I disagree that that teaching is only for the religious, common sense tells us that the religious are spiritually stronger than us. If something is wrong for them, it is doubly so for us non-religious.

The “act” was created for marriage and should not be separated from it’s procreative aspects. I believe it’s wrong for an unmarried person to look and risk being consumed by passion, (if you look, there is ALWAYS the chance that you would sin) and also for a married person to look at someone who is not his spouse. So St Gregory says, it is not lawful to behold what is not lawful to covet. Jesus kept his eyes down to earth and it was described as modesty. Maybe we should practice the same?

 

[jimmy]

Well, you can believe what you want, to your own detriment. I say I believe what Alphonso says, that there is always the chance that a look can inspire sin. Remember, it takes only ONE mortal sin to die spiritually. Would you take that chance? I disagree that that teaching is only for the religious, common sense tells us that the religious are spiritually stronger than us. If something is wrong for them, it is doubly so for us non-religious.

The “act” was created for marriage and should not be separated from it’s procreative aspects. I believe it’s wrong for an unmarried person to look and risk being consumed by passion, (if you look, there is ALWAYS the chance that you would sin) and also for a married person to look at someone who is not his spouse. So St Gregory says, it is not lawful to behold what is not lawful to covet. Jesus kept his eyes down to earth and it was described as modesty. Maybe we should practice the same?

It’s a dangerous business going out your door. You don’t know where you’ll be swept off to.

You should stay in bed all day. That way you will never sin. You will be perfectly safe. You will never be tempted by a beautiful woman.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

On the other hand, procreative sex requires the man to be stimulated to a high degree but that doesn’t actually entail a sin.

How does that make any sense?

What is Lust* but *sexual pleasure and desire?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You are misunderstanding Catholic teaching on sexuality.
Sexuality is an expression of spousal love. It is a good (great) thing when oriented toward the good of the spouse…

The Bible itself (specifically Saint Paul) disagrees with you:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

-1 Corinthians 7

 

[The_Bucket]

How does that make any sense?

What is Lust* but *sexual pleasure and desire?

newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm

As chevalier and others have noted, lust is disordered use of sexuality. It’s enjoying sexual pleasure and desire for merely the sake of that pleasure. It’s sexuality with the procreative and unitive natures stripped away.

Think of it this way: Human sexuality at its core is about other people right? Because it’s about uniting with another person and, potentially, creating a third person. So it’s plenty good when it’s used for its God-intended purpose.

Lust is all about me. It’s all about the attention that I can get and the pleasure I can get. Who cares about the other person involved? I want to fantasize, I want to masturbate while looking at this picture, I want to get sexual pleasure from this other person with making a commitment before God that I will forever love and honor this other person.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**The church in 2000 years has never proclaimed any of God’s gifts to be “bad”**Rather what is denigrating to society learning and culture is.

Shalom
God bless

Wrong.

How often has Catholicism proclaimed that we live in a fallen world and that everyone is a sinner?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, you can believe what you want, to your own detriment. I say I believe what Alphonso says, that there is always the chance that a look can inspire sin. Remember, it takes only ONE mortal sin to die spiritually. Would you take that chance? I disagree that that teaching is only for the religious, common sense tells us that the religious are spiritually stronger than us. If something is wrong for them, it is doubly so for us non-religious.

The “act” was created for marriage and should not be separated from it’s procreative aspects. I believe it’s wrong for an unmarried person to look and risk being consumed by passion, (if you look, there is ALWAYS the chance that you would sin) and also for a married person to look at someone who is not his spouse. So St Gregory says, it is not lawful to behold what is not lawful to covet. Jesus kept his eyes down to earth and it was described as modesty. Maybe we should practice the same?

Based on that logic lay Catholics should all be celibate too.

 

[The_Bucket]

Wrong.

How often has Catholicism proclaimed that we live in a fallen world and that everyone is a sinner?

Come now AA, you know more about our doctrine than that and there’s no need to let sarcasm and a bit of a trolling nature bleed into your posts. We do live in a fallen world and everyone is a sinner. But all of God’s gifts to us are good. The reason that the world is fallen is because of man’s free choice to sin, not because of God.

 

[chevalier]

How does that make any sense?

What is Lust* but *sexual pleasure and desire?

Disordinate sexual desire, coupled with objectification. You can desire sexual intercourse without desiring to make your wife or husband into a sex object to gratify yourself. It’s probably very hard to achieve fully but it’s possible, theoretically.

 

[The_Bucket]

Based on that logic lay Catholics should all be celibate too.

Here’s where we’ll agree a bit. I think Rocks is wrong to say that those in the religious life are necessarily spiritually stronger than the laity. How can he or anyone possibly know that? Some of those in the religious life are called to live lives of stricter self-discipline and self-deprivation than others. Some in the religious life are called to take vows of poverty. It’s not for everyone. But then again, some in those lives could also be spiritually dry. I daresay plenty of priests ordained in the US between 1950 and 1975 or so have been discovered to be more than spiritually dry; they’ve been spiritually DEAD and their actions prove that out.

 

[The_Bucket]

Disordinate sexual desire, coupled with objectification. You can desire sexual intercourse without desiring to make your wife or husband into a sex object to gratify yourself. It’s probably very hard to achieve fully but it’s possible, theoretically.

It’s not even theoretical. Even a fallen man like me can say with confidence that I’ve engaged in marital relations because I wanted my wife to feel loved and specifically my love for her. Yeah the pleasure was a nice side effect, but I’ve approached her with a mindset that I want her to know that I love her.

That said, engaging in marital sex for the sake of continence is fine. And I think both my wife and I would concur that there have been times where we’ve just be “on fire” with desire due to hormones or what not.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm

As chevalier and others have noted, lust is disordered use of sexuality. It’s enjoying sexual pleasure and desire for merely the sake of that pleasure. It’s sexuality with the procreative and unitive natures stripped away.

Think of it this way: Human sexuality at its core is about other people right? Because it’s about uniting with another person and, potentially, creating a third person. So it’s plenty good when it’s used for its God-intended purpose.

Lust is all about me. It’s all about the attention that I can get and the pleasure I can get. Who cares about the other person involved? I want to fantasize, I want to masturbate while looking at this picture, I want to get sexual pleasure from this other person with making a commitment before God that I will forever love and honor this other person.

In other words, its sexual desire and pleasure stripped of everything else.
Which means that, at its core, all sexual pleasure and desire is Lustful.

There is an idea I keep running across among Catholics that sexuality can be redeemed if you strip it of everything base/instinctive. But if you do that, you are actually left with no sexuality at all.

Why would a man even want to have sex without sexual desire to motivate him in the first place?
Stripped of its sexual allure intercourse is awkward, undignified, and messy at best.

Before I hit puberty the thought of putting my penis inside another person would have frankly been gross. The idea that it was to make a baby certainly would not have been an attraction.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Come now AA, you know more about our doctrine than that and there’s no need to let sarcasm and a bit of a trolling nature bleed into your posts. We do live in a fallen world and everyone is a sinner. But all of God’s gifts to us are good. The reason that the world is fallen is because of man’s free choice to sin, not because of God.

According to Catholic doctrine God created the world knowing this would happen.

Therefore, yes it is His fault.

You can’t have it both ways.
If God is ultimately responsible for everything good (even the stuff that was bad in a way) then He is also responsible for everything bad.

Anything else is just illogical and inconsistent.

 

[clem456]

In other words, its sexual desire and pleasure stripped of everything else.
Which means that, at its core, all sexual pleasure and desire is Lustful.

There is an idea I keep running across among Catholics that sexuality can be redeemed if you strip it of everything base/instinctive. But if you do that, you are actually left with no sexuality at all.

Why would a man even want to have sex without sexual desire to motivate him in the first place?
Stripped of its sexual allure intercourse is awkward, undignified, and messy at best.

Before I hit puberty the thought of putting my penis inside another person would have frankly been gross. The idea that it was to make a baby certainly would not have been an attraction.

You obstinately refuse to see, understand, and acknowlege what others believe. The discussion is pointless.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
How does that make any sense?

What is Lust but sexual pleasure and desire?

Disordinate sexual desire, coupled with objectification. You can desire sexual intercourse without desiring to make your wife or husband into a sex object to gratify yourself. It’s probably very hard to achieve fully but it’s possible, theoretically.

Exactly.

Theoretically.

The kind of loving and completely non-lustful sex that the Church would describe as pure and good exists only in theory. The mating urge is by nature instinctive and to a large degree selfish. Strip that all away and you have nothing but a sterile asexuality.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You obstinately refuse to see, understand, and acknowlege what others believe. The discussion is pointless.

I see, understand, and acknowledge it all too well.

But I am not a believer.
Why should I simply take what they say regarding sex and lust on faith?

 

[The_Bucket]

The kind of loving and completely non-lustful sex that the Church would describe as pure and good exists only in theory. The mating urge is by nature instinctive and to a large degree selfish. Strip that all away and you have nothing but a sterile asexuality.

This is absolutely and unequivocally untrue. Perhaps chevalier does not have a firm grasp of this because he’s not married. This is not a slight on him, he just has not experienced it. That’s totally fine.

A serious question for you AA: Is there a difference between “hooking up” and marital sex? Is there a difference between sleeping with random people every night and a loving relationship? Are both innately good or both innately bad? Or is there a discernible difference?

 

[The_Bucket]

Why should I simply take what they say regarding sex and lust on faith?

Don’t. Take it on experience.

Look, I’ve got no problem admitting on an Internet forum that I was addicted to pornography. I still fight this addiction every day. This is lust. This is a disordered desire for pleasure. It’s a compulsion to seek selfish pleasure with no regard for who I could and did hurt. Not my wife, not my kids, not the people being objectified in pictures and videos. Nobody. I only cared about how I could feel good.

When it comes to relations with my wife, I will sorrowfully admit I have approached her with similar desires once or twice in life. I approached her as someone I could use for sex and hey, I was married and in the Church, so it was fine! WRONG

There have also been many, many more times, thankfully, that I’ve wanted to have relations with her because I wanted her to know and feel that I love her. Because I do. Wholeheartedly. Yes, the mating desire is strong and the pleasure of engaging in it reinforces this desire.

But bodily pleasure is not bad! It really isn’t! We get pleasure from eating. We get pleasure from sex. Heck, we get a sense of relief from using the restroom. This is all as God intended. However, the problem comes from overindulging or seeking the pleasure for the sake of the pleasure. Overeating is wrong. Disordered sexual behavior is wrong. Seeking pleasure in general for the sake of itself, not simply enjoying it as a side effect for the intended good, is wrong.

 

[clem456]

I see, understand, and acknowledge it all too well.

But I am not a believer.
Why should I simply take what they say regarding sex and lust on faith?

No, you don’t. You do not need to be a believer to understand simple statements on what someone else believes. People are continually correcting you on what the Church’s teachings are on sexuality. Yet you continually misrepresent what people believe. You are demonstrating that you either:

a) still do not understand it

or

b) obstinately refuse to discuss in good faith (had to throw a pun in there) because you have an agenda to defend.
Seems to me a combination of both

 

[The_Bucket]

Clem, I need to correct one thing. And it’s your signature.

We are holy because God loves us. It’s not even that we strive for it or can become it. We are automatically sacred. What we do with that sacred nature, however, is up to us. Be well my friend.