M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
If you say so…In other words, sexual pleasure is wrong if you want or enjoy it *too much *(as defined by celibate priests)
- Status
R
R_C
Guest
First of all, celibate priests (and in general all who achieve the equilibrium of chastity through self-mastery, whether single or married) are very satisfied with their sexual life, unlike those who fall into the vicious circle of lust.In other words, sexual pleasure is wrong if you want or enjoy it *too much *(as defined by celibate priests)
I have been the latter, now I walk the path of chastity, though I am far away from achieving it.
However, I have never felt more free and more satisfied with my sexuality in my whole life.
When I was about 5 years old, I loved honey so much! My grandmother would bring me some of the purest honey, and I would have it on a daily basis.
Now I cannot eat honey anymore, except using a very little spoon, and in very small quantities. Even a coffee spoonful will feel extremely repelling to my whole body.
Yes, sexual pleasure, like everything else in this short life, if you want to enjoy it too much, is wrong. And it will have terrible consequences in the future, for you and for your spouse as well.
Don’t be angry, we know exactly what we’re doing, brother
R
R_C
Guest
I guess
J
jimmy
Guest
All the sarcasm aside, what does this have to do with looking at a woman? That passage has nothing to do with looking at women. It refers to offering sacrifices to false gods. Are you saying that by looking at a woman who is attractive you participate with demons?
H
hazcompat
Guest
NO!
Proverbs quote is good advice, you took it to the extreme.Corinthians quote is in the same context…good advice. Just because something is licit does not mean it is advisable. Aquinas said he was never tempted by the “flesh”. Others cannot look on beauty without temptation. Are you saying that I am saying proverbs only applies to lust and the awful conclusion that “all beauty is evil”? God Is Beauty.
Do not give Love due to the uncreated Living God to anything created.
Are you implying I partcipate with demons?
J
jimmy
Guest
You need to offer some explanation when you give a quote a lot of times. Otherwise your meaning is ambiguous. I thought you were agreeing with the OP and backing up his argument.
I didn’t imply that you participate with demons. I agree with you that God is beauty.
R
R_C
Guest
- Like I said, I’m on that path
- I know people
I also know quite a lot of people who were like me before, that is, who have no intention whatsoever of achieving chastity, and to a lesser or greater extent have made sexual pleasure the center and sort of the sole goal of their life. And they are neither happy nor satisfied. They just live that life thinking is the best one because they unfortunately don’t know any better
Now I don’t mean I know any better
I’m pretty ignorant. But I know enough by now, both by common sense and by experience, to know that self-mastery, though it takes some time, brings to a healthier, more peaceful, and more satisfying life.I recommend the practice of chastity to all, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers, because chastity is a virtue inherent to the human being, practiced by many throughout time and throughout the world.
Honestly, I wouldn’t say any of this if I hadn’t tried it myself and had experienced benefits. As you know, the strict moral code I follow requires that I do not bear false witness, so if it were a hard or impossible way of life, or one that makes me or others miserable, I’d have the duty to say it clearly.
S
silicasandra
Guest
Um, thank you?
T
thewanderer
Guest
Have you noticed, AA, how the Church does not define what constitutes too much? I really wonder how you have such good information about what the Church teaches that you can make claims about Church teachings that the Church has never explicitly made. Such asQuote:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
In other words, sexual pleasure is wrong if you want or enjoy it *too much *(as defined by celibate priests)
Can you find an official Church teaching that teaches this? I am certainly unaware of such a teaching.
In fact, even St. Thomas who you would probably consider to have a restrictive view on sexuality concluded the exact opposite.
To be honest, I don’t understand why anybody would deny that it is possible to have an inordinate desire for sex, after all, sex addicts really do exist. If a couple were to be so caught up in desire for sex that they started neglecting their child I am sure even you, AA, would consider their desire to be inordinate. Since the Church has not said any more on the subject beyond the fact that inordinate desire is sinful, without giving some line such as number of times a day/week/year etc, I think it is a little harsh to assume that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are overly restrictive. There clearly is such a thing as an inordinate desire, just as there clearly is such a thing as a perverted sexual desire (think of a pedophile). The Church’s official teaching on lust is to say that inordinate and disordered sexual desire is sinful. I really don’t see why anybody would have a problem with that.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
How would you know?
What (if anything) is this belief based on?
Moreover, Godly celibacy and chastity is not compatible with the Christian God’s command to ‘be fruitful and mulitply.’
How would you know?
What (if anything) is this belief based on?
In other words hearsay.**1) Like I said, I’m on that path
2) I know people **
If you started to talk with good, practicing Catholics, single and married, as well as with priests, you’d find this out as well.
I also know quite a lot of people who were like me before, that is, who have no intention whatsoever of achieving chastity, and to a lesser or greater extent have made sexual pleasure the center and sort of the sole goal of their life. And they are neither happy nor satisfied. They just live that life thinking is the best one because they unfortunately don’t know any better
Now I don’t mean I know any better
I recommend the practice of chastity to all, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers, because chastity is a virtue inherent to the human being, practiced by many throughout time and throughout the world.
Honestly, I wouldn’t say any of this if I hadn’t tried it myself and had experienced benefits. As you know, the strict moral code I follow requires that I do not bear false witness, so if it were a hard or impossible way of life, or one that makes me or others miserable, I’d have the duty to say it clearly.
Moreover, Godly celibacy and chastity is not compatible with the Christian God’s command to ‘be fruitful and mulitply.’
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
i don’t know why but what you said(?) does not make total sense to me.
isn’t a sacrifice admired or not?
Shalom
God Bless
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
What is the value of sacrificing something that supposedly (according to Christian theology) is bad (like normal human sexuality)?
T
thewanderer
Guest
AA, why do you keep perpetuating this myth? (Unless you actually believe that rapists, pedophiles and people who ignore other important duties in order to have sex as fulifilling normal human sexuality??) I’ve pointed you to actual Church teaching saying the exact opposite more than once. Just because there are some radicals who happen to be Catholic who hold such opinions does not mean that that is what the Church herself says. Since you seem unwilling to accept the facts presented to you it really makes it seem as though you are here simply to rip on Catholics, which, if it is true, is really not appreciated.
R
Richard320
Guest
For the most part I agree.
If a man goes to the beach with his family, he’s going to see plenty of nearly-naked women. He sees them, he can admire them, they’re just scenery. The human figure is the most perfect example of beauty and engineering. If he goes to the beach with the intention of looking at the women, then he’s “looking.” If there’s some gorgeous woman in front of him while the family is picnicking and he keeps getting distracted, that’s not his fault; he was designed to find women attractive. But if he gets up from the picnic to follow the beauty and get a better view of her, that’s 'looking."
Going to a strip club is “looking.” Sitting at the bus stop and some knockout walks past and he enjoys the view while it lasts is not.
It’s all about motives. A man can’t control what he sees, but he can control what he’s looking for.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
This is objectification, which is also wrong.
C
chevalier
Guest
I think refusing to look one’s own mother in the face for fear of awakening lust is rather extreme unless one is very strongly tempted and actually has to take that type of precautions. I am not exactly impressed by the example of the saint who told a woman that he would beg God to make him forget her etc. I believe protecting ourselves from temptations doesn’t justify being rude to the opposite sex, nor should it get us to a point where we can’t function in the society.
True, but to harbour sexual desire that one does not have the right to fulfil does seem disordered.
It does strike me as extreme to say that a religious can’t behold the beautiful face of a member of the opposite sex if able to do so without lusting, and that actually being unlawful. On the other hand, I wouldn’t exactly be unskeptical about “artistic nudity” and the like. As much as the Vatican Museums hold a lot of the latter.
Well, it does matter what you do about the thinking while the view lasts. Once disordered desire kicks in, you look the other way. Or even any desire.
Beholding the form and beauty is different from beholding “sexy” in a way connected with our reactivity to the opposite sex in sexual terms. We don’t really have business engaging that faculty with people we aren’t married to. I’d say it’s probably a good idea to stop looking when arousal starts. While there is some right to enjoy the view, the duty to avoid temptation will trump the right to enjoy the view when there is no specific reason for looking.
The first part is true: men aren’t supposed to lust after their wives. Ordinate desire is okay. Actual sexual relations are okay. Disordinate desire, especially objectifying the wife, is not.
On the other hand, procreative sex requires the man to be stimulated to a high degree but that doesn’t actually entail a sin.
C
clem456
Guest
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. When not oriented toward the good of the spouse, it is lust, or disorderd desire. It is desire oriented to one’s self alone. There are many ways it can be disordered.
As to the OP’s question, it depends on what you mean by “looking”. Say you happen to notice a woman who arouses sexual feelings in you. That is hardly sin, in that you do not command the sidewalk in front of you. If you continue to look at the sexual aspects, you are probably appropriating the woman for your own pleasure, or what we call “objectifying” her, making her an object rather than a human being with full dignity before God. She has a body, a mind, and a soul. The appropriate thing to do if we are attracted is, talk to her and appreciate her as a whole person. The second look and the sexual dwelling is sinful (but oh so hard to avoid).
The second and third look applied to your wife is wonderful, because she is your spouse, and it is the right context. But it has to be mutual. If you ogle your wife to the point where she is uncomfortable, that is a problem. Sex is spousal.
Circumstances may apply. A sailor who’s been stuck on a submarine for two months probably has mitigating factors for not prying his eyes away.
Me on the other hand, I look twice because it inflames my passions and fuels activities I don’t want to get into here. The second look -for me- is very sinful, because I know where my heart is, and where I am being led.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
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
- Status