Lust

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mustard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mustard

Guest
Is it sinful to have lustful thoughts of one’s own wife? (Please, no lame jokes about it being miraculous)
 
Well, I trotted out my nook edition of the Ignatius RSV-2CE and pulled up the note on 1 Thessalonians 4:4. In context, starting with 4:3: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathens who do not know God.” Now the note says that scholarship ancient and modern is divided over the term translated “body” - Paul wrote “vessel” - as to whether it refers to a man’s body or to his wife. A relevant part of the note: “If (the wife), Paul is advocating the honorable pursuit of marriage, not as an outlet for lust, but as a pure and holy partnership in the Lord…Either way, Paul is urging readers to master the passions associated with human sexuality.”

I do think it is possible for a man to objectify his wife in the same way as other women, and view her as simply a device to satisfy his sexual needs. I think one can become obsessively concerned with the physical aspects of the relationship while devoting very little thought or concern to the spiritual aspects. I might say that it is lawful - even commanded (Proverbs 5:18-19) - to desire one’s wife; that is, to focus all your thoughts of love and satisfaction on her alone. However, I think that to lust after one’s wife is just as degrading to her as it would be toward any other woman. I’m a teacher, and one of my students once said, “I’m not trying to be nasty or cause trouble, but I really want to know: how can you rape your wife?” I responded, “If she says no.” A marriage license is not like a driver’s license; any time you want to, you can’t just jump on in and take 'er for a spin!
 
I think lust diminishes how you see your wife. lust keeps you from seeing your wife in how she really is, and it really isn’t good for the love life, cultivating seeing your wife as she should be seen is way healthier and actually feels a lot better to.
 
It depends on what one means by “lust”.

In the colloquial sense of sexual desire, there is nothing wrong with have strong sexual desire towards one’s spouse. That’s what God intended sexual desire/attraction for!

In the sense of objectification, then yes, it can be wrong in marriage. If you desire your spouse in such a way that it separates their personhood from their physical/sexual qualities, it is sinful.
 
The sin would appear to lie not in the sexual desire itself so much as in the objectification of the spouse. Like many men, I regularly gave myself hand relief from the time of my teens. When I came back to the Church, I stopped doing this, and I’m bound to say, I’ve found that refraining from the physical act, while not exactly easy, has been a lot less troublesome than dealing with feelings of lust. You either perform a physical act or you do not; if the act is sinful, and you don’t do it, you have not committed the sin. You may have been tempted, but you did not cross the line. It’s easy in that situation to assess your status; either you’ve done it or you haven’t.

Thoughts, feelings, emotions, on the other hand, are much more troublesome. Is a stray thought of adultery, for example, the same as committing adultery? The mind is far more difficult to control than the body. Would you therefore find it morally acceptable if, as a technique of mental control, one confined one’s lustful thoughts to one’s wife? Or failing that (assuming one had a powerful enough imagination), to a woman or women completely made up and who have no existence outside the mind of the one imagining them?
 
Mustard said:
Thoughts, feelings, emotions, on the other hand, are much more troublesome. Is a stray thought of adultery, for example, the same as committing adultery? The mind is far more difficult to control than the body. Would you therefore find it morally acceptable if, as a technique of mental control, one confined one’s lustful thoughts to one’s wife? Or failing that (assuming one had a powerful enough imagination), to a woman or women completely made up and who have no existence outside the mind of the one imagining them?
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. Yes, the lines are grey with regard to thoughts. But there are some general principles…

Firstly, unwanted thoughts are not sins. They are temptations. We cannot avoid having all manner of thoughts that are unworthy. But we only sin when we indulge in them, when we assent to them and foster them.

Secondly, sexuality is for marriage. So any sexual thoughts you have should be with regard to your spouse. The unmarried should not foster sexual thoughts, and the married should reserve them for their spouse. Fictional women are not suitable objects of your sexual imaginings. Better to think of your wife, but to do so in a loving manner that does not objectify her but preserves her personhood even in a physical/sexual context. Does that make sense?
 
As I think about this, I am more and more leaning towards the view the the Church has a real difficulty with sex of any kind, in or out of marriage. Since even basic, missionary position sex between husband and wife, without contraception and open to conception is essentially (at least at the physical level) each party using the other for gratification, surely even that objectifies the other person? Why, then, is it considered moral at all? Does the Church have a problem with the act of sex in and of itself?
 
Mustard said:
As I think about this, I am more and more leaning towards the view the the Church has a real difficulty with sex of any kind, in or out of marriage. Since even basic, missionary position sex between husband and wife, without contraception and open to conception is essentially (at least at the physical level) each party using the other for gratification, surely even that objectifies the other person? Why, then, is it considered moral at all? Does the Church have a problem with the act of sex in and of itself?
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with your assertion that married sex is “essentially (EVEN at the physical level) each party using the other for gratification”. The primary function of sex is reproduction: God’s decree was “increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). He did not say, “Go forth and selfishly tingle your nerves at the expense of the other person, and by the way, you’d better be ready for a baby, too, or else!”

However, God in his benevolent mercy saw fit to turn what could have been a mere mechanical biological function into an occasion of mutual joy. See the astute quote above, to the effect that “lust takes; love gives.” The partners in the marital act are not each subtracting their own pleasure from the event; each is adding something to the event that makes something far greater than either alone, or even both together. In fact, what they are making is love, and love is the creator of life: God himself is love. You could say - a bit weird, I know, but I think true - that God himself is present in each act of marital love, smiling and blessing the process. How could the Church possibly be against that?
 
Forgive me if I sound snotty. Like many who have been away from the Church, I always assumed I come back; when I did, I found it much harder than I remember to uphold its precepts. Lust (or desire, if you prefer) is a natural function; it forms part of the whole process of sex. I’m simply having great difficulty separating sex (within marriage) from lust. It’s a bit like running a car without petrol; possibly you can do it on batteries, and its certainly more responsible and eco-friendly, but you simply cannot get the same performance. Sorry if this all sounds a little juvenile, but it’s a problem, and I am trying to address it. A “pure” physical relationship, so to speak, is, I suppose, a great ideal, but a physical relationship is still sex, pure or not. How do you take the lust out of it?
 
I think that terms are being confused here. There is a difference between lust and arousal. Sex without arousal is simply not possible, and especially strictly procreative sex. It is physically impossible to engage in procreative sex without at least one of the participants being aroused. So we can allow that since the Church permits procreative sex within marriage, it also permits arousal.

Lust is one way we become aroused; another is love. The point of the Church’s teaching is that a married partner’s path to arousal should be that of love, not lust, even when it comes to one’s wife.

That’s my take anyway.
 
Mustard, please forgive me if I come off as “holier-or-purer-than-thou.” I’m not. I, too, had been away from the Church for a while. What happens when we’re away from the gym for a while? It’s harder to “carry out” the weights, for a while; we just have to remember why we’re here in the first place.

On the back wall at my parish, we have a set of seven resin faces representing the Seven Deadly Sins. The one for “Lust” is a rather nasty-looking large man licking his lips. He’s about to grab something and consume it, selfishly. It doesn’t really matter what.

On the other hand, we find in Scripture Genesis 2:25: “Now they were both naked, Adam and his wife. And they were not ashamed.” Proverbs 5:18: “…rejoice with the wife of thy youth: Let her be thy dearest hind, and most agreeable fawn (note: soft and elegantly curved and beautiful and feminine): let her breasts inebriate thee at all times: be thou delighted continually with her love”. And so much of the Canticle of Canticles, or Song of Solomon, which many commentators have noted can be read, among other ways, as celebrating the joys of matrimony: “A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me; he shall abide between my breasts”…“His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me”…“Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins”…“How beautiful are thy breasts, my sister, my spouse! thy breasts are more beautiful than wine”…7:7-8…if I quote any more Scripture I’m going to get banned!

Desire, which is ordered sexual attraction in marriage, seeks its pleasure in the beloved, not from the beloved. That is lust, which is sexual attraction that can be disordered in two ways: being sexually attracted to one who is not one’s spouse, and being attracted to one’s spouse in a way that is selfish and objectifying. Granted - it’s easier to tell the difference in a philosophical discussion than it is in bed. Nevertheless, a right view of the difference makes it seem obvious why the Church could not possibly “have a problem” with pleasurable sex in marriage. My opinion.
 
Mustard said:
Is it sinful to have lustful thoughts of one’s own wife? (Please, no lame jokes about it being miraculous)
Click to expand...
I hope not :eek:

I positively encourage my husband lusting after me 😃

He’s away on business, and right about now, he should have found the DVD I recorded and packed with his shirts :D:D:D

Sarah x 🙂
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church 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:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Do you mean lust or sexual pleasure/attraction? Sexual pleasure and attraction are natural components of the marital act. It’s instinctive. God placed it there to accompany sex. They are not wrong in themselves. There is nothing wrong if the spouses experience them IN RELATION to their sexual act.

Lust is a different matter. It is the use of the sexual faculty OUTSIDE of its proper context (a sexual union between a man and a woman, within marriage, and is open to life). Therefore, if by “lustful thoughts” you mean rousing your sexual appetite through thoughts about your wife when you are not actually having sex, then it’s wrong. It’s not what it’s made for. After all, why would one rouse these faculties OUTSIDE the act they are intended for? Apart from it being totally selfish, it endangers the person to sexual acts outside of marriage (by self abuse or with another who is not your wife)
 
underacloud said:
It depends on what one means by “lust”.
Click to expand...
Lust is defined in the catechism as disordered. Sexually desiring one’s wife is not disordered. It is the design of God.

So you have given us the question the best spin. Only if there is something disordered in the desire is it sinful. I do not know that there is anything such as “too much” desire in marriage, as long as it is combined with love and remains unitive and open to life.
 
Well if your going to lust after a woman then the woman you are married to is the best choice.
 
Mustard said:
Forgive me if I sound snotty. Like many who have been away from the Church, I always assumed I come back; when I did, I found it much harder than I remember to uphold its precepts. Lust (or desire, if you prefer) is a natural function; it forms part of the whole process of sex. I’m simply having great difficulty separating sex (within marriage) from lust. It’s a bit like running a car without petrol; possibly you can do it on batteries, and its certainly more responsible and eco-friendly, but you simply cannot get the same performance. Sorry if this all sounds a little juvenile, but it’s a problem, and I am trying to address it. A “pure” physical relationship, so to speak, is, I suppose, a great ideal, but a physical relationship is still sex, pure or not. How do you take the lust out of it?
Click to expand...
I should have been clearer in my earlier post. But the term lust as used by the church is different from the meaning of “sexual desire” or “arousal”. So the problem is only a misunderstanding around the use of the term.

This section of the catechism discusses these issues:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

A couple of relevant sections are:

*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. *

*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."145 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.*

Here we see, plain and clear, that the Church teaches that the pleasure of sex is intended by God and married people do nothing wrong in seeking it or enjoying it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top