Lust and attraction and adultry

[AngryAtheist8]

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**!

Wouldn’t that make it inherently sinful?
Plenty of Church Fathers and saints seemed to have rather Gnostic views of the human body, especially with relation to sex

 

[davidv]

No, I don’t accept that definition.

Then you are by definition, using fallacious (equivocation) arguments in attempting to engage in the topic. The Church’s teaching on the matter are based on a specific definition of a term, which was originally used in a non-english language (the native tongue of 1st century Palestinians)

 

[searching04]

Wouldn’t that make it inherently sinful?
Plenty of Church Fathers and saints seemed to have rather Gnostic views of the human body, especially with relation to sex

Guess it has evolved over time, though supposedly church teachings can’t evolve, or so someone said somewhere in here… !

Supposedly it is a sin to lust after your own wife/husband. I guess if all I wanted was just sex and nothing else, maybe; but overall, I don’t believe that. I’m absolutley lustful for my wife - or we wouldn’t have had four kids, or take advantage of sex when we’re able.

So, how angry are you?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Then you are by definition, using fallacious (equivocation) arguments in attempting to engage in the topic. The Church’s teaching on the matter are based on a specific definition of a term, which was originally used in a non-english language (the native tongue of 1st century Palestinians)

One of the reasons I don’t accept the Catholic definition is because it matches nothing that exists in reality. The other reason is because it doesn’t match the conventional definition of the term.

Such as this one:

Lust:
1.a desire to gratify the senses; bodily appetite
2.a.sexual desire
b.excessive sexual desire, esp. as seeking unrestrained gratification
3.a.overmastering desire: a lust for power
b.intense enthusiasm; zest
4.Obsolete
a.pleasure
b.inclination

Source: yourdictionary.com/lust

 

[davidv]

One of the reasons I don’t accept the Catholic definition is because it matches nothing that exists in reality. The other reason is because it doesn’t match the conventional definition of the term.

Such as this one:

Lust:
1.a desire to gratify the senses; bodily appetite
2.a.sexual desire
b.excessive sexual desire, esp. as seeking unrestrained gratification
3.a.overmastering desire: a lust for power
b.intense enthusiasm; zest
4.Obsolete
a.pleasure
b.inclination

Source: yourdictionary.com/lust

Since these definitions were created many years after the development of the Church’s teaching on lust, I fail to see the point. Are you, not the Church, the one who might not be in touch with reality in this circumstance?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Guess it has evolved over time, though supposedly church teachings can’t evolve, or so someone said somewhere in here… !

Supposedly it is a sin to lust after your own wife/husband. I guess if all I wanted was just sex and nothing else, maybe; but overall, I don’t believe that. I’m absolutley lustful for my wife - or we wouldn’t have had four kids, or take advantage of sex when we’re able.

So, how angry are you?

On a scale of 1 to 10 (one being relatively calm, ten being furious) I tend to flacuate between 2 and 6. But that’s a vast improvement over the way I was when I was younger

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Since these definitions were created many years after the development of the Church’s teaching on lust, I fail to see the point. Are you, not the Church, the one who might not be in touch with reality in this circumstance?

Unlike the Church, I don’t stand to profit by demonizing or exalting sexuality

Moreover, the Catholic Church is usually the first one to reject the principal that an idea’s popularity is proof of its truth. Based on this standard, even if only I support a particular concept of Lust, and everyone else (including Catholics) reject it, that doesn’t prove that the idea is wrong

 

[davidv]

Unlike the Church, I don’t stand to profit by demonizing or exalting sexuality

No profit is involved - unless you think gaining heaven is profit - in which case I’ll ask; what’s wrong with that?

Moreover, the Catholic Church is usually the first one to reject the principal that an idea’s popularity is proof of its truth. Based on this standard, even if only I support a particular concept of Lust, and everyone else (including Catholics) reject it, that doesn’t prove that the idea is wrong

Nice rant, but not relevant.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Unlike the Church, I don’t stand to profit by demonizing or exalting sexuality

No profit is involved - unless you think gaining heaven is profit - in which case I’ll ask; what’s wrong with that?

.

There’s a great deal of profit.
If the Church can convince people that normal sexuality is bad (as it has done in the past) then everyone with a normal sexuality has a reason to seek forgiveness from the Church and/or God.

 

[Wardog]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Unlike the Church, I don’t stand to profit by demonizing or exalting sexuality

There’s a great deal of profit.
If the Church can convince people that normal sexuality is bad (as it has done in the past) then everyone with a normal sexuality has a reason to seek forgiveness from the Church and/or God.

Psychologists won’t even define the word normal, much less try to define normal sexuality.
It’s hard to define normal sexuality in a way that everyone will agree; what’s yours?

 

[underacloud]

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 **

I am well aware of what Augustine has to say on the topic. In my opinion, the very quote you offer from Pope John Paul II sufficiently implies my view that Augustine, as great a doctor of the Church as he is, is simply wrong on this point.

That marital sex sought for pleasure is sinful, even a little bit venial, is not something taught by the Magisterium. It fulfills the unitive purpose of sex and is morally correct when the procreative purpose of sex is not deliberately frustrated (through contraception).

If your position was true, it would be sinful for pregnant couples to have sex, for post-menopausal women to have sex, for infertile couples to have sex, and would prohibit recourse to infertile periods, which is expressely condoned in Humanae Vitae. The Church has never taught any of these to be sins (albeit certain theologians may have).

A person using their spouse as a mere object for sexual gratification can be sinful, as you rightly point out. A person can lust over their own spouse in a manner that is inconsistent with the unitive purpose of sex.

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.

 

[underacloud]

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.

I am so glad you agree.

So I assume now that you will stop criticising the Church based on your own definition of a term that the Church uses differently. Thanks.

 

[searching04]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Unlike the Church, I don’t stand to profit by demonizing or exalting sexuality

There’s a great deal of profit.
If the Church can convince people that normal sexuality is bad (as it has done in the past) then everyone with a normal sexuality has a reason to seek forgiveness from the Church and/or God.

Wow…haven’t seen it presented that way. I tend to think that the church goes overboard to keep people from enjoying or focusing too much on non-intercourse sex, and therefore having fewer kids, fewer little Catholics.

 

[TimothyH]

Wow…haven’t seen it presented that way. I tend to think that the church goes overboard to keep people from enjoying or focusing too much on non-intercourse sex, and therefore having fewer kids, fewer little Catholics.

That is just the most disgusting, nasty, steriotypical, garbage I have heard in a long time.

Is it possible to argue the issue on its merits instead of attacking your own Church’s motives?

-Tim-

 

[searching04]

That is just the most disgusting, nasty, steriotypical, garbage I have heard in a long time.

Is it possible to argue the issue on its merits instead of attacking your own Church’s motives?

-Tim-

Absolutely, I think: how can we argue or discuss it without discussing “motives”? AngryAthiest presented it as a way to keep people coming back to the church to confess; I honestly wonder and question why the church goes so far as it does in it’s teachings on sex, why it uses words such as “grave” and “intrinsically evil” and “disordered”, why even in the most serious of situations - medical or whatever - that there is no choice whatsoever for couples to make a decision on their own that maybe, just maybe, not having intercourse, but being sexually intimate to climax, is what is needed or best in order to maintain sexual and overall intimacy?

But that is not allowed at all. The church dicates what is and is not allowed. The only thing - the one and only thing - that the church mandates in sex is that the man must climax during intercourse. Why? Because it has declared that all sex must be both unitive and procreative, not one or the other. Why? Because God said so. Did He? Does God really expect couples to only and always have intercourse, even when getting pregnant may kill the wife, or if intercourse is not possible, or if having kids is financially not a possibility, or when the lack of sexual intimacy for long periods of time is damaging to the relationship? Or did He give us the gift of sex and the brains in our heads to use to love our spouses and expect us keep things in perspective? I don’t believe for a second that a loving God expects couples to suffer in their relationships and intimacy because they may or may not decide to have the man climax in intercourse.

The fact that the church under no circumstances whatsoever, no matter how grave or not, allows for anything other than the man climaxing in intercourse tells me that the church is being pre-emptive and assumptive: it assumes what is in a couples’ hearts; it assumes that if couples enjoyed sex without intercourse, then pleasure might be the focus instead of unity (though it is very unitive), that they might well not have intercourse as much or at all, then what happens? Sorry you don’t like it, but fewer pregnancies means fewer kids. Use the right words, scare couples into compliance, tell them they just have to suck it up and bear it and suffer in their relationships. God really wants that?

Is the church trying to save our souls? Maybe. I don’t totally buy that at all. But it definitely does tell couples they cannot decide for themselves.

Motives? You tell me. You cannot discuss merits without discussing where the dictates come from.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Psychologists won’t even define the word normal, much less try to define normal sexuality.
It’s hard to define normal sexuality in a way that everyone will agree; what’s yours?

That’s hard to describe, but if I had to reduce it to one word:
Heterosexuality.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am so glad you agree.

So I assume now that you will stop criticising the Church based on your own definition of a term that the Church uses differently. Thanks.

I think the conventional definition of Lust is the correct one.
But I’m biased:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Wow…haven’t seen it presented that way. I tend to think that the church goes overboard to keep people from enjoying or focusing too much on non-intercourse sex, and therefore having fewer kids, fewer little Catholics.

You don’t actually need to have that much sex to have a lot of kids.
Remember a woman can only have one baby a year (twins and other multiple births being an obvious exception).

So a married woman could more or less stay constantly pregnant by having sex only a few times a year.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by searching04
Wow…haven’t seen it presented that way. I tend to think that the church goes overboard to keep people from enjoying or focusing too much on non-intercourse sex, and therefore having fewer kids, fewer little Catholics.

That is just the most disgusting, nasty, steriotypical, garbage I have heard in a long time.

Is it possible to argue the issue on its merits instead of attacking your own Church’s motives?

-Tim-

Then must you live in a sheltered environment Tim.
Searching’s words were at most a mild criticism of the Catholic Church.

I myself have been more critical in this very thread.

 

[underacloud]

I think the conventional definition of Lust is the correct one.

Firstly, as others have pointed out, the Church needs to deal with many lauguages and thus translation diffilculties. That is why the Church attempts to clearly define the terms she uses. It’s not an attempt to redefine the topic, but to make the Church’s position as clear and precise as possible.

Secondly, if we take your, or the conventional, definition of lust as “sexual desire”, then you shouldn’t have any problem because the Church does not teach that sexual desire (“lust”) is wrong.

I hope that helps clarrify the Church’s position.