Looking is immoral!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocks_91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but as a poster admitted earlier in this thread, virtually all (sexual) desire is disordered from the Catholic perspective.
One random person saying something does not constitute the Church’s doctrine. I’ve laid out actual authoritative teaching on what lust is. I just provided links to the Catechism that give the definition.

You’re conflating things that are not there. Sexual desire is not disordered. What can be disordered is how we act on those desires either physically or mentally. When we start just desiring only pleasure as opposed to intimacy (which includes pleasure), that’s a disordered desire.
 
How does our definition of lust or sex affect you anyway? You are an atheist, you dont HAVE to take anyone’s word for anything. Why should this even be an issue for you?** Unless there is some kind of deeper compulsion within you that hungers for the truth** 🙂
Well if that were the case, it would silly of me to spend so much time on CAF wouldn’t it:p
 
Again, seeking pleasure for itself from a can of Coke is fine because you are not using another PERSON.

seeking pleasure sought for itself from another person is objectifying, dehumanizing, and using that person without any consideration for them as a person who possesses emotions, a soul, a mind etc.
In other words, real life (sexual) desire is considered disordered from the Catholic perspective.
 
Is it wrong to drink a coke because it tastes good? Is it wrong to eat a steak because it tastes good? Is it wrong to watch tv because you enjoy it? Is it wrong drink a beer because a couple beers makes you feel good?

**This idea of selfless sex, in which we don’t seek our own pleasure, but only to please the other person is nonsensical. **There is nothing wrong with seeking something simply fpr the pleasure ot offers, unless you think pleasure is evil. Is there a problem with pleasure? Are we supposed to hate ourselves and our lives? Should it be pure torture, or atleastt a dull and boring drag?
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
 
Pleasure sought for itself, or rather more accurately, an activity done solely to acquire pleasure for one’s self, can be a bad thing. There’s the element of selfishness, and the blindness to a higher good than mere pleasure. Now, we are making silly comparisons here. No one would begrudge someone a coke for the great belch and pleasing tingle it put’s up your nose.

A coke is an inanimate object, a human being is a human being, not because I say so, but because God created them. To use another human being solely for one’s own pleasure is evil, it is objectification, or appropriating for one’s own pleasure a person who belongs first to God, and has a dignity that must be respected. This applies to not only the spouse in front of us, but also to images we appropriate through pornography or ogling on the street.

**The hard part here is, this principle does not preclude pleasure from the act of sex, rather enhances it. **This is where people get confused and the reason we are having a dispute about this issue. It can be a hard concept to grasp, because pleasure is a powerful motivator. A chaste life (not the same as celibate) is not a life of drudgery,it is a life of properly ordered peace, joy, pleasure, and can be every bit as spontaneous once the virtue of purity is mastered. (The virtue of purity is not the same as celibacy either.)
People get these concepts confused.
How is that in any way, shape, or form true?

What is it based on?
 
You keep insisting on a definition that isn’t there AA. I don’t get it. Though looking through your other posts you’re certainly of the mindset that the Catholic Church simply wants us all to be miserable and unhappy in this life because hey, that suffering will give us eternal paradise.

That’s just lunacy.

As Catholics, we’re called to embrace life and live it to the fullest! Living life to the fullest extent possible means exercising the one big gift we received, free will, and handing it over to God and letting Him do what He wills with us. He has such better plans for us than we have for ourselves.

Of course, if you think that happiness comes from sleeping around, getting wasted, making a lot of money and accumulating as many material possessions as possible, then yeah I guess the Church is against you being happy. But the Church teaches that those things will not bring us happiness. Only by living for God and for others will we ever truly be happy.

The Church’s teaching on sexuality is merely the application of the two greatest commandments: Love your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.

You love God by participating in sexual union as it was designed and not manipulating it for selfish ends. You love others as yourself by not sexually using them for your own ends. The fact that we receive pleasure from sexual congress is not wrong. It’s good and holy. It reinforces on a base level that sex is good. It’s when we turn sex, which is all about two people (three if you include God and you should) and instead make it about ourselves when it becomes bad. I think I’ve made this point exceedingly clear.

Even many atheists thing pornography is bad because it objectifies people. Even many atheists think cheating on a spouse or significant other is bad because it violates trust. I’m merely going below the surface as to why these things are wrong and pointing out that the root cause is twisting sex and turning it into solely selfish pleasure.
 
Are you seeking the pleasure for merely seeking pleasure? That is a problem. Maybe we’re talking cross-purposes here. Spouses who engage in marital relations should always try to approach selfless love. The very sexual act in and of itself proves the selflessness when completed in a fashion according to Church doctrine. That’s mutual self-giving right there, even if the mindset is not always attuned.

If you’re saying that you feel desirous of intimacy and you want that desire fulfilled, well that’s fine my friend. If you’re talking about merely physical pleasure, well I think there’s a problem and you certainly can fall into the trap of using other people for your own purposes.
But its *never *completed in that fashion.
The sex drive is by nature selfish.

If a man is filled with thoughts and feelings of holiness then he is almost by definition not filled with arousal or sexual desire at that point.
 
In other words, real life (sexual) desire is considered disordered from the Catholic perspective.
Nope, attraction is fine. Using people for sex is wrong, even if its your wife. We shouldnt be using people.
 
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
This and a thousand times this. And it’s not a purely theological scenario. It’s experienced all the time in good marriages. This is just putting a theological framework around what we all know and feel is quality marital intimacy.
 
One random person saying something does not constitute the Church’s doctrine. I’ve laid out actual authoritative teaching on what lust is. I just provided links to the Catechism that give the definition.

You’re conflating things that are not there. **Sexual desire is not disordered. **What can be disordered is how we act on those desires either physically or mentally. When we start just desiring only pleasure as opposed to intimacy (which includes pleasure), that’s a disordered desire.
True, the Church says that now, but what it says is good sex and sexual desire doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
 
But its *never *completed in that fashion.
The sex drive is by nature selfish.

If a man is filled with thoughts and feelings of holiness then he is almost by definition not filled with arousal or sexual desire at that point.
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.
 
True, the Church says that now, but what it says is good sex and sexual desire doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
For the most part it doesnt exist because people dont follow what the Catholic Church teaches. Pretty self explanatory no?
 
Are you seeking the pleasure for merely seeking pleasure? That is a problem. Maybe we’re talking cross-purposes here. Spouses who engage in marital relations should always try to approach selfless love. The very sexual act in and of itself proves the selflessness when completed in a fashion according to Church doctrine. That’s mutual self-giving right there, even if the mindset is not always attuned.

If you’re saying that you feel desirous of intimacy and you want that desire fulfilled, well that’s fine my friend. If you’re talking about merely physical pleasure, well I think there’s a problem and you certainly can fall into the trap of using other people for your own purposes.
My beef is with the continual perpetuation of this idea that it should be a selfless act. In the other post you talked of desire being fine and felling ‘on fire’ is fine, but now you say it should be selfless. That sounds like a contradiction. It’s the perpetuation of the idea that it should be selfless that makes me bring up the 13 year old girl. She is selfless too.

It shouldn’t be selfless, it should be mutual. Solitaire is a boring game. It is also boring to play speed or spit if one of you doesn’t enjoy it.
 
True, the Church says that now, but what it says is good sex and sexual desire doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
Have you ever felt love for a significant other and wanted to have sex with him or her because you loved her? While that would be a disordered action prior to marriage, the desire itself is the one that God wants. The desire to give of yourself in a sexual manner is very real and very base.

We don’t have sex, generally, just to feel good. We have sex to feel LOVED. Right? I mean, this is a universal thing. I don’t know many people who are 100% cool with sleeping around because it feels good and why not. Most people think, at the very least, that such a thing is classless. We’re all fine these days apparently with people having sex “once they are in love.” While I find that to be laughable since those people haven’t proved that they really love one another, it’s quite evident that sex is tied to love. And love is tied to God because God IS love. So I can’t understand how you can say that sexual desire can’t be holy.

Sexual union is all about love. God is love. God is also holy. Transitive property here people! If sex (when properly ordered) is love, God is love and God is holy…then sex is holy.
 
My beef is with the continual perpetuation of this idea that it should be a selfless act. In the other post you talked of desire being fine and felling ‘on fire’ is fine, but now you say it should be selfless. That sounds like a contradiction. It’s the perpetuation of the idea that it should be selfless that makes me bring up the 13 year old girl. She is selfless too.

It shouldn’t be selfless, it should be mutual. Solitaire is a boring game. It is also boring to play speed or spit if one of you doesn’t enjoy it.
Well perhaps I had the wrong diction then. What clem said is right. It should be mutual self-donation. It should not be selfish. My apologies on the poor word choice.
 
I understand it.
As for having an agenda…

Don’t you have an agenda just by virtue of being Catholic?
Ok, I was in the middle of writing a reply to one of your other posts, but I saw this and I have to respond to this first.

AA, How dare you imply that the fact that I hold certain opinions means that I cannot have intellectual honesty and integrity!
 
Well perhaps I had the wrong diction then. What clem said is right. It should be mutual self-donation. It should not be selfish. My apologies on the poor word choice.
In fairness, it is usually implied that being self less is not the same as self-negation.
 
Have you ever felt love for a significant other and wanted to have sex with him or her because you loved her? While that would be a disordered action prior to marriage, the desire itself is the one that God wants. The desire to give of yourself in a sexual manner is very real and very base.

We don’t have sex, generally, just to feel good. We have sex to feel LOVED. Right? I mean, this is a universal thing. I don’t know many people who are 100% cool with sleeping around because it feels good and why not. Most people think, at the very least, that such a thing is classless. We’re all fine these days apparently with people having sex “once they are in love.” While I find that to be laughable since those people haven’t proved that they really love one another, it’s quite evident that sex is tied to love. And love is tied to God because God IS love. So I can’t understand how you can say that sexual desire can’t be holy.

Sexual union is all about love. God is love. God is also holy. Transitive property here people! If sex (when properly ordered) is love, God is love and God is holy…then sex is holy.
Right,and love is not a solely a feeling, it is primarily consists of a free choice made by free persons, to committ and sacrifice to one another. Pleasure fits very well into it’s proper place here.

Using the spousal analogy here. Jesus loves His people. This love entails pleasure He had and still has, in dealing with His people, however the ultimate proof of His love is the sacrifice of Himself, which cannot have had much temporal pleasure involved, although joy and peace were certainly there.
Couples who are 80 years old and been married for 60 years would have a good chuckle at this thread.
 
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.
The underlined is not at all true. You do not at all understand what Catholicism teaches. Catholicism teaches that sexual pleasure is itself neutral. When enjoyed in the right way it is good and when enjoyed in the wrong way (for example the sexual pleasure of pedophiles and rapists) it is bad. I have previously given you a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church the official compendium of Catholic teaching which explicitly states that spouses are supposed to enjoy sex. It is very clear that you do not understand the teachings of Catholicism on this matter because you are claiming that the Church teaches and holds things which she just plain doesn’t.

Here is the quote again, just for reference:
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.
Please stop claiming that the Church teaches things which it explicitly teaches are false.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top