Lust and Mortal Sin

[Elizabeth502]

Another question I had:
There was something inappropriate on tv, and I saw it and looked away. I turned away and tried not to think about it. I kept feeling the need the look back, though, and I did a few times. Was it a sin?

Doubtful, unless you dwelt on the images for a prolonged time Sounds as if you were repeatedly tempted and curious, which is normal. Happens to most people. There is so much stuff that is “inappropriate on tv” now that it is virtually impossible to eliminate encountering anything suggestive. Try not to become overly anxious about that. That merely leads to an obsession about it. Try to think of yourself as the master of what you see and hear; you control it; it doesn’t control you.

 

[benidict]

Another question I had:
There was something inappropriate on tv, and I saw it and looked away. I turned away and tried not to think about it. I kept feeling the need the look back, though, and I did a few times. Was it a sin?

Yes, Apparently if you breath wrong its a mortal sin. Get down on your knees and repent right away. You will most definitely have to talk to a Priest. Your very existence is evil!! Just kidding. No you did not sin.

 

[benidict]

New International Version (©1984)
And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus said, "I have been very eager to eat this Passover meal with you before my suffering begins.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

Incidentally, this word desire used here, is the same word used for lust. To lust is to strongly desire something or someone. Not all lust is bad. Christ himself proves this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Incidentally, this word desire used here, is the same word used for lust. To lust is to strongly desire something or someone. Not all lust is bad. Christ himself proves this.

No, actually, Christ himself distinguished, by context, between passionate desire for spiitual friendship with another, etc. and desire in the context of inordinate or misdirected sexual attraction – such as an illicit relationship with a focus on carnal pleasure apart from mutuality of pleasure (looking at another with lust), etc. What you quoted from Jesus’ words is clearly in the context of dynamic, mutual relationship. That has a different connotation than the denotation you limit yourself to (the literal meaning of the words themselves).

Second, I know that since you’re a former Baptist, it’s hard for you to extricate yourself from the habit of private scriptural interpretation (or rather, choosing what to accept about Catholic doctrine, and which to dissent from with the help of your private scriptural interpretation), but that approach is fundamentally un-Catholic. A committed Catholic, or at least those of us trying as mightily as we can clumsily try, to be guided by Church teaching, seeks to reconcile private challenges to belief by using the Church as the standard, not using individual scripture interpretation as the standard against which the Church’s teaching is tested. But what you may not know is that there’s a wealth of scriptural teaching (hermeneutics, commentary, homiletics, biblical spirituality) within the body of Catholic resources, without resorting to limited, private, or unique interpretations. That also doesn’t mean that we can’t consult a variety of learned, scholarly opinions on scriptural passages (I often consult many sources), but when we’re using scripture to excuse or rationalize rebellion against doctrine & against faith, then we’re merely manipulating scripture. Any serious conflict we encounter between scripture & doctrine is something we should bring to prayer, to Catholic resrouces, and to spiritual (clergy) counsel.

 

[benidict]

No, actually, Christ himself distinguished, by context, between passionate desire for spiitual friendship with another, etc. and desire in the context of inordinate or misdirected sexual attraction – such as an illicit relationship with a focus on carnal pleasure apart from mutuality of pleasure (looking at another with lust), etc. What you quoted from Jesus’ words is clearly in the context of dynamic, mutual relationship. That has a different connotation than the denotation you limit yourself to (the literal meaning of the words themselves).

Second, I know that since you’re a former Baptist, it’s hard for you to extricate yourself from the habit of private scriptural interpretation (or rather, choosing what to accept about Catholic doctrine, and which to dissent from with the help of your private scriptural interpretation), but that approach is fundamentally un-Catholic. A committed Catholic, or at least those of us trying as mightily as we can clumsily try, to be guided by Church teaching, seeks to reconcile private challenges to belief by using the Church as the standard, not using individual scripture interpretation as the standard against which the Church’s teaching is tested. But what you may not know is that there’s a wealth of scriptural teaching (hermeneutics, commentary, homiletics, biblical spirituality) within the body of Catholic resources, without resorting to limited, private, or unique interpretations. That also doesn’t mean that we can’t consult a variety of learned, scholarly opinions on scriptural passages (I often consult many sources), but when we’re using scripture to excuse or rationalize rebellion against doctrine & against faith, then we’re merely manipulating scripture. Any serious conflict we encounter between scripture & doctrine is something we should bring to prayer, to Catholic resrouces, and to spiritual (clergy) counsel.

You just do not like the word lust my friend. That is why you are opposing this. Sorry. Do a study. I did not pull this out of a hat. It is a legitament interpretaition. I also so not believe in private interpretation, but…Im certainly going with the Interpretaion that is makes the most sense. There is Nothing disordered or sinful, about strongly desireing certain things. I study from a wide variety of teachings and always have. I dont limit myself to ONE opinion. I am sure that we can agree, that this would be a bad research technique Elizabeth. Only cults teach that their interpretation is correct. Catholicism teaches there is an element of Truth in other belief sytems as well. So I have no problem researching other points of view. Seriously research the words Christ uses, and Still tell me I am wrong. Please Do not automatically assume my Baptist heritage Is responsible for my views. I actually did not get this from a baptist.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Another question I had:
There was something inappropriate on tv, and I saw it and looked away. I turned away and tried not to think about it. I kept feeling the need the look back, though, and I did a few times. Was it a sin?

Dude, The more you try NOT to think of something like that, then the more you will think about it. Just a suggestion… .try just letting go of it. Let it pass, and don’t dwell on thinking about it, or not thinking about it. Does that make sense? You can only control the stimulus that comes your way to a minor degree. Life is full of such surprises, particularly with the warmer weather coming on. Just relax, don’t dwell on anything that you might see… let go of it. If you can do that, then you will be fine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You just do not like the word lust my friend.

No. I don’t like inaccuracies, whether secular, scriptural, or doctrinal.

That is why you are opposing this. Sorry. Do a study. I did not pull this out of a hat. It is a legitament interpretaition.

No, it is not a 'legitimate interpretation." I am opposing your utter misunderstanding of the term, “lust.” Catholicism does not define lust as intense desire. It defines it thus:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2351: Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.

All vices (of which lust is one) are perversions & misappropriations of natural desires: thus, Thus, the appreciation of worldly goods is natural; the inordinate desire for them is avarice. Love of food is good and natural; inordinate indulgence in it is gluttony.

I also so not believe in private interpretation, but…Im certainly going with the Interpretaion that is makes the most sense.

That is what is called private interpretation.

There is Nothing disordered or sinful, about strongly desireing certain things.

That’s why that is not the definition of “lust.”

I study from a wide variety of teachings and always have.

That doesn’t make your “study” authentic or accurate, particularly when it is based on false premises, such as you have stated here.

Catholicism teaches there is an element of Truth in other belief sytems as well.

The Church does not teach that all religious beliefs are equal; nor does it teach syncretism (a little of this, a little of that). The Church directly opposes syncretism as non-authentic. It would help if you would become informed about your faith. It is clear from this exchange that you are insufficiently informed as to some essential basics, such as the Capital Sins and their definition, and how they contrast to an ordered life and how they relate to their opposite Virtues.

Christ uses, and Still tell me I am wrong. Please Do not automatically assume my Baptist heritage Is responsible for my views.

Jesus’ words, like other passages in scripture, are within context. There’s no sense in the passages you quoted that he is equating the kind of desire he describes with lust. Connotation is not denotation. Learn the difference.

I don’t “assume” it. I deduce it from your so-called methods which are apparent here and your proclivity to substitute your private interpretation on a wide variety of essential Catholic moral teachings, on several CAF threads.

 

[Bookcat]

You just do not like the word lust my friend. That is why you are opposing this. Sorry. Do a study. I did not pull this out of a hat. It is a legitament interpretaition.

Christ was referring to lust in the sinful sense…not the more “general” sense that one may find in certain alternate definitions in dictionaries of the English language.

The Church too is using it in the sinful sense…

Lust thus in the theological sense…and that of moral theology more specifically is gravely disordered…gravely sinful. Hence the use of the term in the Catechism.

 

[TimothyH]

Another question I had:
There was something inappropriate on tv, and I saw it and looked away. I turned away and tried not to think about it. I kept feeling the need the look back, though, and I did a few times. Was it a sin?

St. Augustine addresses this in his book titled City of God.

In it he addresses the many holy women who were raped by the Visgoths when they sacked Rome in 410 AD. These woman, Augustine puts forth, if they resisted or if they did not desire sexual contact, retained their purity and chastity, even though they were physically raped and might have even experienced bodily pleasure.

Paul speaks of the war between the flesh and the spirit in Romans 7 and Galatians 5. It is hard to overcome the desires of the flesh. That is why I have such a deep love for preists, deacons and cloistered monks and nuns, consecrated virgins and such. They successfully crucify the flesh and lust only after Christ. For most of us under assualt out in the world, it’s hard enough to stay pure but as long as our desire is for purity, we recognize that we are weak and earnestly seek God’s help, the strength to do those things which purity requires, then we are on the right track and God will be faithful. It has to do with our intentions.

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna. (Matthew 5:29-30)

That may mean no TV in the house. It may mean putting Safe Eyes on the computer. It may mean quitting the gym membership or not going out to lunch with those particular guys any longer. For me it means not going to the grocery store at certain times of the day and sometimes hanging a U-Turn and going to a different aisle or picking a different chechout register. It means looking at the floor or the ceiling or a prayer card. It meant planting a large bush between my patio and the neighbor’s deck.

But many people are not willing to do those things required for purity. Again, I think it has more to do with pure intentions. God knows we are weak and I think he comes to the aid of those who earnestly try. At least that is my experience.

-Tim-

 

[Elizabeth502]

Bookcat, the issue is benidict’s post #23, in which he cites passages during which Jesus is referring to a completely different object of desire than an improper object of desire (such as lusting after someone else’s wife), or an improper (inordinate) degree of sexual desire – such as fixating on sexual desire & allowing it to dominate disproportionately one’s life. Those are “Christ’s words” he is talking about, which he is claiming are synonymous with the vice of lust, as opposed to the natural passion of desire.

Benidict is alleging that when the denotation of a word can be established as identical, its connotation can be equally applied. Naturally that is not only non-scriptural, it doesn’t even comport with the rules of the English language.

Lust does not refer to ordered, mutual desire. Nor does lust refer merely to sexual attraction per se. Nor does lust refer to an artificial self-restraint or repression within the context of (an ordered) marriage. It refers to disproportion – in object and/or in degree.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, the issue is benidict’s post #23, in which he cites passages during which Jesus is referring to a completely different object of desire than an improper object of desire (such as lusting after someone else’s wife), or an improper (inordinate) degree of sexual desire – such as fixating on sexual desire & allowing it to dominate disproportionately one’s life. Those are “Christ’s words” he is talking about, which he is claiming are synonymous with the vice of lust, as opposed to the natural passion of desire.

Benidict is alleging that when the denotation of a word can be established as identical, its connotation can be equally applied. Naturally that is not only non-scriptural, it doesn’t even comport with the rules of the English language.

Lust does not refer to ordered, mutual desire. Nor does lust refer merely to sexual attraction per se. Nor does lust refer to an artificial self-restraint or repression within the context of (an ordered) marriage. It refers to disproportion – in object and/or in degree.

Jesus is certainly referring to Lust in the sermon on the mount in the sinful sense …the sense used in the theological sense as noted in the CCC under the 6th commandment.

While there can be in English another definition of a “general sense” of “strong desire” …Jesus is referring to the disordered sinful sense.

Benidict’s “lust” to show not all “lust” is sinful …is true in the that there is even in English (I leave the Greek to those who know it…it is Greek to me…)…a sense meaning a “strong desire” which can be in the non disordered sense it would seem…and can be good to point out.

But such is not of course as noted the way that Jesus is using the term in the sermon on the mount…nor what we mean when one uses the term “lust” in moral theology

(but I will leave you two to discuss things…I have a* lust *just now for some nice Kandiecakes…and milk …)

 

[Link0126]

And Catholics seem to have forgotten what the priest says at every Mass… “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” He didn’t come to give us coping mechanisms or to help us keep it under control. He came to take away our sins. Gone. Period. Personally, I believe that becuase I have experienced it with regard to lust. When I hear people say, “Oh, don’t worry about it, it’s normal to lust” I wonder how many others really believe that.

Yes, I have experienced this with lust as well. Not completely taken away but much, much less tempted by it and more willing/able to overcome those temptations. The grace of confession has helped me immensely with this. I can’t wait to see if the grace received from taking the Eucharist will further help as well. We are having are marriage validated and I have to wait until that process is finished to receive again.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jesus is certainly referring to Lust in the sermon on the mount in the sinful sense …the sense used in the theological sense as noted in the CCC under the 6th commandment.

Please try to follow this thread, not another thread or another scriptural passage. The issue is NOT the Sermon on the Mount. That is not what the poster benidict introduced. I am extremely familiar with Matthew 5. It is my area of expertise. The issue is post 23. Please re-read it, instead of posting before reading. Thank you.

Very annoying to have to repeat oneself:

Bookcat, the issue is benidict’s post #23, in which he cites passages during which Jesus is referring to a completely different object of desire than an improper object of desire (such as lusting after someone else’s wife), or an improper (inordinate) degree of sexual desire – such as fixating on sexual desire & allowing it to dominate disproportionately one’s life. Those are “Christ’s words” he is talking about, which he is claiming are synonymous with the vice of lust, as opposed to the natural passion of desire.

The Sermon on the Mount is off-topic. The description of lust in the Sermon is not the issue in this particular discussion. At least that is not what I am arguing with benidict about, nor what he introduced. He introduced completely different passages to try create an equation which is not equal. Again, try to follow.

 

[benidict]

Jesus is certainly referring to Lust in the sermon on the mount in the sinful sense …the sense used in the theological sense as noted in the CCC under the 6th commandment.

While there can be in English another definition of a “general sense” of “strong desire” …Jesus is referring to the disordered sinful sense.

Benidict’s “lust” to show not all “lust” is sinful …is true in the that there is even in English (I leave the Greek to those who know it…it is Greek to me…)…a sense meaning a “strong desire” which can be in the non disordered sense it would seem…and can be good to point out.

But such is not of course as noted the way that Jesus is using the term in the sermon on the mount…nor what we mean when one uses the term “lust” in moral theology

(but I will leave you two to discuss things…I have a* lust *just now for some nice Kandiecakes…and milk …)

Yes. This term can be used in different ways. I see what you are getting at. What are kandie cakes? They sound yummy. I for one am greatful for the food I recieve over here but I am lusting for some good home cooking, that I will be getting in a very short few weeks!

 

[benidict]

Elizabeth-Jesus’ words, like other passages in scripture, are within context. There’s no sense in the passages you quoted that he is equating the kind of desire he describes with lust. Connotation is not denotation. Learn the difference.

I don’t “assume” it. I deduce it from your so-called methods which are apparent here and your proclivity to substitute your private interpretation on a wide variety of essential Catholic moral teachings, on several CAF threads. ME- Elizbeth. It is similar when Christ was reinstating Peter. He asked Peter 3 times if he loved him. Peter got very upset. Why? Because Jesus kept asking him a question? No. The reason was, because he used 3 different meanings of the word love. But we only use the word love in our text. In a similar fashion. His use of the words in the passage of in the Last Supper, Did have a stronger meaning than what is implied by our English language.

επεθυμησα verb - aorist active indicative - first person singular
epithumeo ep-ee-thoo-meh’-o: to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise) – covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

Here Elizabeth, this may help. I will also post the link for your further study. Fair enough?

scripturetext.com/luke/22-15.htm

 

[Bookcat]

Please try to follow this thread, not another thread or another scriptural passage. The issue is NOT the Sermon on the Mount. That is not what the poster benidict introduced. I am extremely familiar with Matthew 5. It is my area of expertise. The issue is post 23. Please re-read it, instead of posting before reading. Thank you.

Very annoying to have to repeat oneself:

The Sermon on the Mount is off-topic. The description of lust in the Sermon is not the issue in this particular discussion. At least that is not what I am arguing with benidict about, nor what he introduced. He introduced completely different passages to try create an equation which is not equal. Again, try to follow.

Then it would seem that you and he need your own thread you guys are (inadvertantly) derailing this one . The topic of this thread was the question of looking with lust at women…see post #1 (setting the topic of the thread…I was on this thread as the second person to respond…so I am aware of the topic of this thread… I was keeping to topic…) which is what the sermon on the Mount saying refers to. Benidict in #23 seemed still to be intending to comment on this thread (thus this topic)… hence my comments. If you guys are going away from the subject of the thread…such is getting off topic.

Have a great Lords Day!

 

[benidict]

Then it would seem that you and he need your own thread you guys are (inadvertantly) derailing this one . The topic of this thread was the question of looking with lust at women…see post #1 (setting the topic of the thread…I was on this thread as the second person to respond…so I am aware of the topic of this thread… I was keeping to topic…) which is what the sermon on the Mount saying refers to. Benidict in #23 seemed still to be intending to comment on this thread (thus this topic)… hence my comments. If you guys are going away from the subject of the thread…such is getting off topic.

Have a great Lords Day!

My apologies. I shall withdraw. Thank you for your insight.

 

[Tennis42]

So if Were to consent for say, 10 seconds, and then tried to stop, would it be partial consent?

 

[Bookcat]

So if Were to consent for say, 10 seconds, and then tried to stop, would it be partial consent?

Hummm…

If one were to give “complete consent” …that would be well…complete consent…

The question is if it is complete consent or not…is it deliberate…

but it is possible that one is in a “state of temptation”…

It is difficult for me to judge for you.

There is not a “quantity of seconds” that one can specify.

A few * signs* of lack of complete consent from Tanquery “The Spiritual Life”:

1. We may judge that there has been no consent if in spite of the suggestion and the instinctive pleasure …we experience disgust or not happy we are tempted…or we struggle not to be overcome…it we are horrified at the evil…if we turn to God in prayer…
2. If one does not reject the temptation as soon as one realizes it it is dangerous for one…this is a fault against prudence …
3. If one momentarily hesitates… but then does not want to offend God etc…and after that moment of hesitation repels the temptation–again there is a venial sin of imprudence.
4. If one resists the temptation in a half-hearted way…one does resist but weakly…or slow way …but in the end rejects the temptation…there would be it seems half-consent…thus a venial sin.

(not sure if I quoted exactly…but it the substance of what he notes)

 

[Bookcat]

So if Were to consent for say, 10 seconds, and then tried to stop, would it be partial consent?

Again one must distinguish between say attraction and lust…or temptation and any sin…or even say some other kind of less sinful look (not lustful…but some venial sin perhaps…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7882228&postcount=7

Your confessor can help you too…