Looking is immoral!

[57Bill]

Looking at a woman or her beauty incurs no sin. It’s what you do with such look in your mind in relation to lust.

There are two kinds of beauty…one being superficial sexual beauty and the beauty of a woman’s heart grounded in compassion, empathy, humility and the love of God etc.

Its the weak passions of a man’s senses that are his undoing.

Which is why Jesus speaks of this in Matthew Chapter 5: 27-30
haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html

27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: *Thou shalt not commit adultery.

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 *And if thy right eye cause thee to offend, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, than that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand cause thee to offend, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, than that thy whole body should go into hell.

Spot on!

If I I may add that Christ knows that in this and many many many other things we fall short and need his Salvation. Being aware that one lusts AND that it is wrong is one step toward change (repentance) and forgiveness.

 

[jimmy]

Yes it is nonsensical, because that is not an accurate description of the teaching.
“Mutual self donation” is the concept you should look into. This is not selfless, rather it includes the self, mutually with the other self. Pleasure is rightly ordered and rightly experienced in this scenario.

Theology of the Body by JP2
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

Could you explain the term ‘mutual self donation’? Sounds the same as selfless to me. Sounds like someone voluntarily being a sex slave. Donation carries the connotation of one person losing possession while the other gains it. If that’s the case, then do I still possess myself or is she my master? I only exist to serve and please her?

 

[clem456]

Could you explain the term ‘mutual self donation’? Sounds the same as selfless to me. Sounds like someone voluntarily being a sex slave. Donation carries the connotation of one person losing possession while the other gains it. If that’s the case, then do I still possess myself or is she my master? I only exist to serve and please her?

I post a link to one passage below, just some of the groundwork for it. Here also is the link to the whole document.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm
For all posters: this is the most recent and definitive Catholic teaching in this area. If you want to dispute it, first read it through (take your time) so you at least understand what the Church actually teaches. If you dispute it, keep in mind you are arguing not with this message board, but with one of the finest philosophers and theologians ever to walk the earth.

The Man-Person Becomes a Gift in the Freedom of Love
John Paul II​

GENERAL AUDIENCE 16 JANUARY
In the course of the General Audience on Wednesday, 16 January, the Holy Father delivered the following address.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb14.htm

The chapter is too long to paste in the body of this message. You will have to do some work.

 

[The_Bucket]

Could you explain the term ‘mutual self donation’? Sounds the same as selfless to me. Sounds like someone voluntarily being a sex slave. Donation carries the connotation of one person losing possession while the other gains it. If that’s the case, then do I still possess myself or is she my master? I only exist to serve and please her?

Come on jimmy, would JPII advocate for anyone to become a sex slave?

Think of it this way: We are called to live Christ’s example in every aspect of our lives, right? That includes our sex lives and that includes in sexual acts when it comes to us married folks.

So then apply this teaching from Matthew: “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

We need to follow John the Baptist’s example as well. We must decrease so He can increase. But when we decrease to allow Christ to increase, we’re saving our lives! When we give up control to Him, we let ourselves live.

What is the nature of love? It’s the giving of ourselves. And Christian love entails loving without expecting anything in return. In a good Christian marriage we are called to subjugate our own wills to our spouses. We are called to live for them just as we are to live for Christ and for the service of the rest of the world. The highest position you can ever be in is that of servant.

Since the giving is mutual, however, it involves receiving. At Christmas we give gifts, but we also receive them. The higher honor is to give a gift, but it’s fine and dandy to receive gifts and be pleased by them. The same in marital relations. The higher honor is to give love but we must also receive the love our spouses are giving us. That way we are equally honored; both are giving and both are receiving.

 

[clem456]

The Man-Person Becomes a Gift in the Freedom of Love
John Paul II​

GENERAL AUDIENCE 16 JANUARY
In the course of the General Audience on Wednesday, 16 January, the Holy Father delivered the following address.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb14.htm

Here is a profound quote from this chapter:

This freedom lies at the basis of the nuptial meaning of the body. The human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity seen in the very mystery of creation, is not only a source of fruitfulness and procreation, as in the whole natural order. It includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and—by means of this gift—fulfills the meaning of his being and existence.

Fulfills…a word that inlcudes pleasure and much more.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s nonsensical. You think that holiness then is all theoretical or all choirs singing and sitting piously in Mass or something. That’s not holiness. Sure, prayer is a holy thing. So is participation in Mass. But so is cutting down a tree for an elderly neighbor. So is working together as a team in a charitable spirit to win a sports game.

And guess what, sexual desire, when properly ordered, IS HOLY! My desire for my wife is absolutely and unequivocally holy. My vocation is to be a father and husband. When I carry out my duties in those roles with a cheerful disposition, I am being holy. One of those duties is marital intimacy with my wife. When I am filled with sexual desire for her, I am filled with a holy desire. I desire to be physically close with her. I desire to give her love and receive the love she gives me.

Just because it’s gritty and earthy doesn’t mean it’s not holy. Holiness is gritty and earthy. Jesus Christ was up on the cross NAKED and giving himself to the world. Yeah there was no loincloth there. That’s pretty darn gritty. That’s pretty earthy. That’s a pretty good demonstration that we can do holy things with our bodies.

Suffering is not the only thing we can do with our bodies that’s holy. We can eat the Eucharist. We can use it to build things or conduct other meaningful work. We can feed our children. And yes, we can show our love for our spouses through sex. These are all holy things.

The Catholic Church has been exalting celibacy at the expense of marriage and marital sex at least since the time of Saint Paul:

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

-1 Corinthians 7

 

[clem456]

the catholic church has been exalting celibacy at the expense of marriage and marital sex at least since the time of saint paul:

1now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: And likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: And likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6but i speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7for i would that all men were even as i myself. But every man hath his proper gift of god, one after this manner, and another after that.
8i say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as i.

-1 corinthians 7

wrong.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

wrong.

That’s not much of a rebuttal:shrug:

 

[thewanderer]

AA, would you mind clarifying what you mean by ‘at the expense of’?

 

[clem456]

AA, would you mind clarifying what you mean by ‘at the expense of’?

That’s the question.
AA, if there’s going to be any kind of meaningful discussion you should do some homework on Church teaching first. That’s YOUR responsibility, no one else’s. This issue is addressed at length in this document:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I dont think AA wants to do his homework. If he did he wouldnt have any misconceptions and misinformations to base his arguements on. And then he wouldnt be angry.

 

[jimmy]

You guys want to accuse AA of intellectual dishonesty, but it is your own words that confuse the issue if it is confused. Calling sex a selfless act shows one of three things; first that you haven’t reached the age of puberty and you have no idea what it means to be attracted to a woman, second you are actually asexual and don’t feel attraction to women, or you are a hopeless idealist who hopes that someday you will be so ‘pure’ that you won’t feel sexual desire for your wife. At that point you will only have sex to satisfy her desires, if God forbid she is still cursed with sexual desire.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You guys want to accuse AA of intellectual dishonesty, but it is your own words that confuse the issue if it is confused. Calling sex a selfless act shows one of three things; first that you haven’t reached the age of puberty and you have no idea what it means to be attracted to a woman, second you are actually asexual and don’t feel attraction to women, or you are a hopeless idealist who hopes that someday you will be so ‘pure’ that you won’t feel sexual desire for your wife. At that point you will only have sex to satisfy her desires, if God forbid she is still cursed with sexual desire.

What? You’re making the same error he is, confusing sexual desire with lust.

 

[jimmy]

What? You’re making the same error he is, confusing sexual desire with lust.

You guys are the ones calling it a ‘selfless’ act. Considering that, you have turned sexual desire and lust into the same thing.

 

[clem456]

You guys want to accuse AA of intellectual dishonesty, but it is your own words that confuse the issue if it is confused. Calling sex a selfless act shows one of three things; first that you haven’t reached the age of puberty and you have no idea what it means to be attracted to a woman, second you are actually asexual and don’t feel attraction to women, or you are a hopeless idealist who hopes that someday you will be so ‘pure’ that you won’t feel sexual desire for your wife. At that point you will only have sex to satisfy her desires, if God forbid she is still cursed with sexual desire.

Jimmy, read his last post. That’s not even the issue being discussed.
As for the issue you’re talking about, we’ve been over this how many times now? What specifically are you not understanding?

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Church has been exalting celibacy at the expense of marriage:

Is virginity or celibacy for the Sake of the Kingdom to be esteemed highly? Yes

But such is not to be “at the expense of marriage”. Marriage is Holy and Good…indeed a Sacrament.

Catechism

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

119 St. John Chrysostom, De virg. 10,1G 48,540

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#I

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, read his last post. That’s not even the issue being discussed.
As for the issue you’re talking about, we’ve been over this how many times now? What specifically are you not understanding?

You never even explained to me the terms you were using (including 'mutual self donation). All you did was give me a link so I could read several articles, that might possibly lead me to understand the terms. The Bucket responded and gave me an explanation, but that still doesn’t make sense to me. Through all of these posts I get the idea that both people are supposed to be passive and they can’t really let loose and have fun.

 

[crimsonglory]

Looking at a woman or her beauty incurs no sin. It’s what you do with such look in your mind in relation to lust.

There are two kinds of beauty…one being superficial sexual beauty and the beauty of a woman’s heart grounded in compassion, empathy, humility and the love of God etc.

Its the weak passions of a man’s senses that are his undoing.

Which is why Jesus speaks of this in Matthew Chapter 5: 27-30
haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html

27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: *Thou shalt not commit adultery.

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 *And if thy right eye cause thee to offend, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, than that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand cause thee to offend, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, than that thy whole body should go into hell.

I think this scripture reference quotes it pretty well. There’s such thing as “looking” and admiring beauty (as in appreciating it)…than there’s such things “lusting” which crosses the border of what’s acceptable.

As a rule of thumb, I would have to say that - If you are not able to look without lusting, than it is in fact a pitfall for sin for you, so don’t do it.

 

[thewanderer]

You never even explained to me the terms you were using (including 'mutual self donation). All you did was give me a link so I could read several articles, that might possibly lead me to understand the terms. The Bucket responded and gave me an explanation, but that still doesn’t make sense to me. Through all of these posts I get the idea that both people are supposed to be passive and they can’t really let loose and have fun.

Then you are clearly still misunderstanding what people are saying. I realize that the particular language people are using is confusing you, because you assume it means one thing while the people speaking to you mean it in another way. So, I think the first thing to get straight is that those using such language do not mean it the way you are taking it. I know, that doesn’t help explain to you exactly how they do mean it, but its an important place to start.

Essentially, the point that I think people are trying to explain is that it is wrong to have sex solely for your own pleasure. Basically, the question is, are you looking on your spouse as an object for your use, or are you looking on your spouse as a person to whom you are giving yourself. Now, the act of giving yourself to your spouse is supposed to be pleasurable, as I previously pointed out. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it, the problem comes in when you start to look at your spouse as an object to be used for your own pleasure. The extreme and very obvious case of this is when a man rapes someone. He is not thinking about that person to be treated with dignity and respect, but is only thinking about them as an object to be used for his own pleasure.

Does that make things any more clear?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You guys are the ones calling it a ‘selfless’ act. Considering that, you have turned sexual desire and lust into the same thing.

I don’t even see a connection here, let alone how the conclusion follows from the premise.