Lust and attraction and adultry

[AngryAtheist8]

It may be an outsiders view, but it doesn’t seem to be an educated one. You have in this threat constantly mis-stated the Church’s position on lust. You merely state what you think the Church teaches and have not amended your understanding based on the responses provided.

Having a realistic view is only possible if you actually read up on what the Church teaches, rather than relying on preconceptions.

Anyway, you said that “there is no realistic way to act appropriately by the standards of the Catholic Church when it comes to sexual desire” and I think I’ve sufficiently answered that challenge. So, all the best.

Not really.

As I have explained in this thread and numerous others, in order to have a healthy sex drive without Lust (as defined by the Catholic Church), someone would have to experience sexual desire and arousal in an unnatural way (assuming it was even possible at all).

 

[Benadam]

Because our sex drive is such a central part of what motivates us,

This is because, like the other animals, we die. But Catholic thought develops around the idea that human life experienced a state of life in which the body is not burdened with needs that originate in a body that dies. Imagine a body that doesn’t die.

that if you can control people’s sex drives you can control pretty much everything about them.

 

[Benadam]

Not really.

As I have explained in this thread and numerous others, in order to have a healthy sex drive without Lust (as defined by the Catholic Church), someone would have to experience sexual desire and arousal in an unnatural way (assuming it was even possible at all).

Not an unnatural way but one that isn’t driven by the bodies need to survive.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Just another example of non-Catholics presuming they understand Catholic theology because they can read English.

We’re Catholics, we deal with lots of languages and billions of people. We know that sometimes, you have to ask what a word means, and sometimes that explanation has another word in it that needs to be explained.

Maybe someday non-Catholics will get that.

 

[underacloud]

As I have explained in this thread and numerous others, in order to have a healthy sex drive without Lust (as defined by the Catholic Church), someone would have to experience sexual desire and arousal in an unnatural way (assuming it was even possible at all).

Actually, you have not *explained *anything. You have merely stated this, and have clung on to your preconseptions despite people trying to help you better understand Church teaching.

As another poster said, the Church has to deal with many lauguages so sometimes certain terms need to be more clearly definied and not taken at face value. The Church uses/defines the term lust differently to how you use it. You can’t keep defining lust in your own way and applying it to Church teaching; you’re making the logical error of equivocation.

 

[FNDRB58]

There is no realistic way to *act appropriately *by the standards of the Catholic Church when it comes to sexual desire.

According to that standard, right action, thought, and feelings are required, otherwise you are sinning.

Sure there is! In the context of a married person you would be acting appropriately if while having the strongest sexual attraction and desire, you and your spouse at the same time love one another, loving each other’s soul, and not doing anything that might compromise salvation. Again, I don’t think you are accepting our definition of the word “lust”, which we mean to describe a feeling of intense sexual desire VOID of true love and not a relationship blessed by God.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Not really.

As I have explained in this thread and numerous others, in order to have a healthy sex drive without Lust (as defined by the Catholic Church), someone would have to experience sexual desire and arousal in an unnatural way (assuming it was even possible at all).

That is because every sexual desire and arousal is in someway at least venially sinful. It isn’t possible to have sexual desire without the presence of concupiscence (lust). At least that is the way that I understand the theology.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

That is because every sexual desire and arousal is in someway at least venially sinful. It isn’t possible to have sexual desire without the presence of concupiscence (lust). At least that is the way that I understand the theology.

If you’re a medeivalist, particularly of Gratian’s party. I’ll take Raymond of Penaforte.

People spent centuries trying to interpret Augustine on the marriage debt, and a variety of opinions resulted, then ressourcement led people to ignore Augustine and work on Paul’s formulation of the conduct of Christian marriage. Might be good to look it all up before the next time you have sex.

 

[underacloud]

That is because every sexual desire and arousal is in someway at least venially sinful. It isn’t possible to have sexual desire without the presence of concupiscence (lust). At least that is the way that I understand the theology.

Well, if that’s what fellow catholics believe, I guess I shouldn’t wonder that an athiest doesn’t understand catholic sexual theology either.

This from the catechism:

*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. 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. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.*

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Well, if that’s what fellow catholics believe, I guess I shouldn’t wonder that an athiest doesn’t understand catholic sexual theology either.

This from the catechism:

*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. 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. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.*

That is speaking of sex for procreation. Sex is the origin of the human race and so is good if it is sought for procreation. If the motive is sexual desire or sensuality then the act would be slightly sinful, at least on the part of the spouse who desires the act. If one spouse seeks sex out of desire then the other does good in providing it out of mutual service. But if the motive is sexual desire then there is at least venial sin present.

 

[underacloud]

That is speaking of sex for procreation.

No, it is not. It is speaking of marital sex, which must be both unitive and open to life. Not all marital relations need to be sought for procreation; they need to be order per se towards procreation, but not sought specifically for procreation.

If the motive is sexual desire or sensuality then the act would be slightly sinful, at least on the part of the spouse who desires the act. If one spouse seeks sex out of desire then the other does good in providing it out of mutual service. But if the motive is sexual desire then there is at least venial sin present.

Please provide evidence that this is consistent with Church teaching.

As I have quoted above, the catechism directly contradicts what you are saying: “the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is because, like the other animals, we die. But Catholic thought develops around the idea that human life experienced a state of life in which the body is not burdened with needs that originate in a body that dies. Imagine a body that doesn’t die. This is because we die

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not an unnatural way but one that isn’t driven by the bodies need to survive.

The body’s need to survive IS natural.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Please provide evidence that this is consistent with Church teaching.

As I have quoted above, the catechism directly contradicts what you are saying: “the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.”

“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are
united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they
abandon themselves to “immoderate intercourse,” they transfer
the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them
realize that though they do “not” then pass beyond the bonds of
wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it
is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what
they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of
pleasure.”

Pope Gregory the Great

Man can commit this adultery in the heart also with regard to his own wife, if he treats her only as an object to satisfy instinct.

Pope John Paul II

What should we think of Augustine’s frequently expressed opinion
that **married intercourse is justified only if it is intended to be procreative, and
has an element of imperfection or venial fault, if carried out solely for pleasure? **
[65] Augustine was basing himself on 1 Corinthians 7:5-7, where St. Paul,
advising spouses not to abstain too long from intercourse, adds that he says this
“secundum veniam” (The Vulgate says “secundum indulgentiam”). Since Paul
is evidently speaking of what can be allowed to married couples, one can
certainly quarrel with Augustine’s exegesis that he is imputing a sin to them.
12 It seems to me that, as between Paul and Augustine, the difference
of emphasis but also the close connection in their thought, is shown in the
proposition that for spouses to seek intercourse—consciously disconnected
from its procreative finality—is excusable self-seeking (Paul), but is still selfseeking (Augustine), and in this latter sense a venial fault. [66]
No doubt it is hard nowadays to subscribe to such a view, which
seems to pass over the humanitatis solatium aspect of marriage. Some would
reject it out of hand as ignoring the unitive power and function which marital
intercourse has, in itself. This latter point merits some consideration

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.pdf

The pleasure itself is not wrong but every act of intercourse, since people are so caught up in original sin, will have a certain part that is dominated by the libido and motivated by sexual desire and an urge fulfill a need. If a couple seeks intercourse that is consciously separated from procreation (NFP) they are committing an excusable fault since the motivation of the act is sexual desire and not procreation.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Actually, you have not *explained *anything. You have merely stated this, and have clung on to your preconseptions despite people trying to help you better understand Church teaching.

As another poster said, the Church has to deal with many lauguages so sometimes certain terms need to be more clearly definied and not taken at face value. The Church uses/defines the term lust differently to how you use it. You can’t keep defining lust in your own way and applying it to Church teaching; you’re making the logical error of equivocation.

Trying to win an argument by redefining the relevant terms is intellectually dishonest.
Whether its being done by an individual or a group like the Catholic Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sure there is! In the context of a married person you would be acting appropriately if while having the strongest sexual attraction and desire, you and your spouse at the same time love one another, loving each other’s soul, and not doing anything that might compromise salvation. Again, I don’t think you are accepting our definition of the word “lust”, which we mean to describe a feeling of intense sexual desire VOID of true love and not a relationship blessed by God.

No, I don’t accept that definition.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is because every sexual desire and arousal is in someway at least venially sinful. It isn’t possible to have sexual desire without the presence of concupiscence (lust). At least that is the way that I understand the theology.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that sexual attraction and arousal is okay, but it has to be stripped of everything instinctive and selfish (e.g. natural and/or animalistic).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is speaking of sex for procreation. Sex is the origin of the human race and so is good if it is sought for procreation. If the motive is sexual desire or sensuality then the act would be slightly sinful, at least on the part of the spouse who desires the act. If one spouse seeks sex out of desire then the other does good in providing it out of mutual service. But if the motive is sexual desire then there is at least venial sin present.

Sinless sex sounds like a rather joyless bleak experience.

Due to to fact that female desire is not strictly necessary for vaginal intercourse, would it be best if the woman just slept through the whole thing?

Because if you’re not supposed to enjoy it, indifference seems ideal.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sinless sex sounds like a rather joyless bleak experience.

Due to to fact that female desire is not strictly necessary for vaginal intercourse, would it be best if the woman just slept through the whole thing?

Apparently so based on Kostya’s post the other day:

Today, 9:00 am
KostyaJMJ
Regular Member Join Date: December 10, 2009
Posts: 1,194
Religion: Catholic

Re: Lust and attraction and adultry

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by underacloud
Please provide evidence that this is consistent with Church teaching.

As I have quoted above, the catechism directly contradicts what you are saying: “the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.”

Quote:
“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are
united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they
abandon themselves to “immoderate intercourse,” they transfer
the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them
realize that though they do “not” then pass beyond the bonds of
wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it
is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what
they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of
pleasure.”

Pope Gregory the Great

Quote:
Man can commit this adultery in the heart also with regard to his own wife, if he treats her only as an object to satisfy instinct.

Pope John Paul II

Quote:
What should we think of Augustine’s frequently expressed opinion
that married intercourse is justified only if it is intended to be procreative, and
has an element of imperfection or venial fault, if carried out solely for pleasure?
[65] Augustine was basing himself on 1 Corinthians 7:5-7, where St. Paul,
advising spouses not to abstain too long from intercourse, adds that he says this
“secundum veniam” (The Vulgate says “secundum indulgentiam”). Since Paul
is evidently speaking of what can be allowed to married couples, one can
certainly quarrel with Augustine’s exegesis that he is imputing a sin to them.
12 It seems to me that, as between Paul and Augustine, the difference
of emphasis but also the close connection in their thought, is shown in the
proposition that for spouses to seek intercourse—consciously disconnected
from its procreative finality—is excusable self-seeking (Paul), but is still selfseeking (Augustine), and in this latter sense a venial fault. [66]
No doubt it is hard nowadays to subscribe to such a view, which
seems to pass over the humanitatis solatium aspect of marriage. Some would
reject it out of hand as ignoring the unitive power and function which marital
intercourse has, in itself. This latter point merits some consideration

churchinhistory.org/pages…/augustine.pdf

The pleasure itself is not wrong but every act of intercourse, since people are so caught up in original sin, will have a certain part that is dominated by the libido and motivated by sexual desire and an urge fulfill a need. If a couple seeks intercourse that is consciously separated from procreation (NFP) they are committing an excusable fault since the motivation of the act is sexual desire and not procreation.

---

People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do.

 

[searching04]

Apparently so based on Kostya’s post the other day:

Today, 9:00 am
KostyaJMJ
Regular Member Join Date: December 10, 2009
Posts: 1,194
Religion: Catholic

Re: Lust and attraction and adultry

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by underacloud
Please provide evidence that this is consistent with Church teaching.

As I have quoted above, the catechism directly contradicts what you are saying: “the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.”

Quote:
“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are
united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they
abandon themselves to “immoderate intercourse,” they transfer
the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them
realize that though they do “not” then pass beyond the bonds of
wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it
is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what
they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of
pleasure.”

Pope Gregory the Great

Quote:
Man can commit this adultery in the heart also with regard to his own wife, if he treats her only as an object to satisfy instinct.

Pope John Paul II

Quote:
What should we think of Augustine’s frequently expressed opinion
that married intercourse is justified only if it is intended to be procreative, and
has an element of imperfection or venial fault, if carried out solely for pleasure?
[65] Augustine was basing himself on 1 Corinthians 7:5-7, where St. Paul,
advising spouses not to abstain too long from intercourse, adds that he says this
“secundum veniam” (The Vulgate says “secundum indulgentiam”). Since Paul
is evidently speaking of what can be allowed to married couples, one can
certainly quarrel with Augustine’s exegesis that he is imputing a sin to them.
12 It seems to me that, as between Paul and Augustine, the difference
of emphasis but also the close connection in their thought, is shown in the
proposition that for spouses to seek intercourse—consciously disconnected
from its procreative finality—is excusable self-seeking (Paul), but is still selfseeking (Augustine), and in this latter sense a venial fault. [66]
No doubt it is hard nowadays to subscribe to such a view, which
seems to pass over the humanitatis solatium aspect of marriage. Some would
reject it out of hand as ignoring the unitive power and function which marital
intercourse has, in itself. This latter point merits some consideration

churchinhistory.org/pages…/augustine.pdf

The pleasure itself is not wrong but every act of intercourse, since people are so caught up in original sin, will have a certain part that is dominated by the libido and motivated by sexual desire and an urge fulfill a need. If a couple seeks intercourse that is consciously separated from procreation (NFP) they are committing an excusable fault since the motivation of the act is sexual desire and not procreation.

---

People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do.

Last paragraph - for the most part, no couple hops into bed, or wherever, going “let’s be unitive”, though there are many times where they can be there sexually for each other for comfort, which is quite untive without procreation being primary. Couples do decide they want to have SEX, driven by libido or the simple fact they have time to do so, and go woo-hoo!; they want to have sex because it feels great, or they wouldn’t bother; and couples do in fact seek intercourse consciously separating procreation from sex via NFP. So yep, sex is dominated by libido and urges!