Naked pictures to spouse

[clem456]

I have $10 for anyone who can actually demonstrate to us that the subject matter here is within the bounds of chastity, purity, modesty, sexual morality, You must use Church teaching, since we are on a Catholic forum. You must include references to real documents. Catechisms, Magisterial statements, Papal writing etc…$10 in the air. Show us the goods, and I’ll show you the money.

Disclaimer: I am not making an assertion one way or the other I do have an opinion, but I will accept whatever the church documents say, so don’t everyone accuse me of being negative. I am just asking if anyone can do this using something other than their own opinions.

 

[thewanderer]

Hi

I was thinking about some thing here.

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio

“Human perfection, then, consists not simply in acquiring an abstract knowledge of the truth, but in a dynamic relationship of faithful self-giving with others. It is in this faithful self-giving that a person finds a fullness of certainty and security.” (bold added, italic added)

When I spoke of being vulnerable, I did not mean to imply that one would feel a lack of security, but was rather talking about the objecctive state of things. In marriage, each spouse becomes extremely vulnerable to the decisions and actions of the other. It is only within a faithful and commited relationship that a person is able to take on a sense of security, but both are absolutely necessary. If a person retains security simply because they never allowed themselves to become truly vulnerable before their spouse then they are holding back part of themselves, they are not truly giving a complete gift of self. I hope that helps clarify what I was thinking. Thanks for bringing that up though, as what I said could have been misunderstood.

 

[ffg]

Thanks bmaj, I get where you and others who have been extra weary about the whole thing are coming from. I think I just happen to be a little more optimistic about the whole thing, but I agree that caution and prudence are important.

With that said, I am sorry to hear about your hubby’s addiction. I will keep you in my prayers.

It’s good you asked the question, rather than deal with the consequences uninformed.

Just remember, optimism is not a virtue, and sin is real.

 

[thewanderer]

I have $10 for anyone who can actually demonstrate to us that the subject matter here is within the bounds of chastity, purity, modesty, sexual morality, You must use Church teaching, since we are on a Catholic forum. You must include references to real documents. Catechisms, Magisterial statements, Papal writing etc…$10 in the air. Show us the goods, and I’ll show you the money.

Disclaimer: I am not making an assertion one way or the other I do have an opinion, but I will accept whatever the church documents say, so don’t everyone accuse me of being negative. I am just asking if anyone can do this using something other than their own opinions.

Since this is not something which is either explicitly permitted or forbidden it is rather dissengenuous to ask for proof from one side as if a lack of it would prove the other. If you honestly just wanted to find out what the official teachings on this are you should have just asked for that. There are many things which are not explicitly allowed by the Church, such as wearing my hair in two braids or going to starbucks for a morning coffee, the lack of explicit permission does not make any of them intrinsically immoral.

 

[clem456]

Since this is not something which is either explicitly permitted or forbidden it is rather dissengenuous to ask for proof from one side as if a lack of it would prove the other. If you honestly just wanted to find out what the official teachings on this are you should have just asked for that. There are many things which are not explicitly allowed by the Church, such as wearing my hair in two braids or going to starbucks for a morning coffee, the lack of explicit permission does not make any of them intrinsically immoral.

Can you talk about the hair in braids thing then? Or would that derail the thread from the question that was asked…

$10. Anybody?

 

[sstrider]

When I spoke of being vulnerable, I did not mean to imply that one would feel a lack of security, but was rather talking about the objecctive state of things. In marriage, each spouse becomes extremely vulnerable to the decisions and actions of the other. It is only within a faithful and commited relationship that a person is able to take on a sense of security, but both are absolutely necessary. If a person retains security simply because they never allowed themselves to become truly vulnerable before their spouse then they are holding back part of themselves, they are not truly giving a complete gift of self. I hope that helps clarify what I was thinking. Thanks for bringing that up though, as what I said could have been misunderstood.

Hi

In truth, is a person who holds back secure?

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

“As Jesus says: “Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk 8:35).” (bold added)

 

[thewanderer]

Can you talk about the hair in braids thing then? Or would that derail the thread from the question that was asked…

$10. Anybody?

Wow.

So you are insisting upon trying to manipulate people to reject what I have said by scaring them into thinking that since I have no explicit Church document to back me up I must be contradicting Church teaching. There is no explicit Church teaching on this point in either direction.. To continue to ask for one is pointless.

 

[thewanderer]

Hi

In truth, is a person who holds back secure?

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

“As Jesus says: “Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk 8:35).” (bold added)

Well, with respect to being hurt by rejection from the other, yes, at least to the extent that they hold back. However it is an empty security that will neither fulfill nor satisfy a person, nor will it lead them closer to Christ the way that a completely giving relationship will. As you point out, it is in giving that we receive.

 

[robwar]

Just curious… what are yall’s thoughts on sending naked or half naked pictures of yourself to your spouse while you are apart for an extended period of time?

I’m assuming this would definitely not fall under the category of pornography, since it’s the person you’re married to and love/are committed to for life, and not some random stranger whom you don’t even care about.

Absolutely not, while you may intend them for each other, any picture can fall into the wrong hands and it goes from there. It really doesn’t take much for either one of you to want to look at other naked pictures of other people, It really doesn’t take much for them to fall into the wrong hands and be posted on the internet. That has happen to too many. Why do you want to look at naked or half-naked pictures when you are apart and can’t fulfill the desires that pictures like this arouse? What if the phone or computer they are on is stolen? Think about it.

 

[ffg]

the lack of explicit permission does not make any of them intrinsically immoral.

Exactly why the beautiful gift of common sense and reason can be used to identify the appropriate categorization.

In the eyes of the place that is currently at this moment hearing hundreds, if not thousands of men confess the sin of masturbation. I think it’s pretty easy to discern the morality of an action that leads to this sin.

 

[The_Bucket]

Can you talk about the hair in braids thing then? Or would that derail the thread from the question that was asked…

$10. Anybody?

clem, I do appreciate where you’re coming from on here but thewanderer is right. There is no authoritative teaching on the matter. Where the Church is silent we are called to follow our own consciences and decide what is appropriate and prudent.

The same goes for certain marital acts so long as they don’t reach completion on the part of the husband. Some people think that, for instance, oral stimulation results in too much lust in the heart. Others (me for instance) find that to be nonsense or at least not applicable in my marriage. The Church has no teaching on the matter and thus we are called to follow what our consciences say and to listen to our spouses about what is or is not comfortable for them.

If, say, a husband pressured his wife into taking a photo, he would be in the wrong. Yes the bodies have been joined as one flesh, but that implies willful surrender. Not dominance. No dominance is allowed by either party. It has to be willful surrender. In this case you have a woman who is making this decision or at least floating the idea on her own accord, not because her husband is insisting that she do it. That’s willful surrender of her body.

We’ve gone over the potential imprudence and potential for near occasion of sin over and over again. But near occasion of sin is not the same as sin and what is a near occasion for one person is not for another. I mean, seeing an immodestly dressed woman is a near occasion of sin for me, but an immodestly dressed man is not a near occasion of sin for my wife. Not really anyway. Why? Because we respond to things differently. Heck, an unintentional viewing of pornography or a sex scene in a movie is a near occasion of sin for me but it’s repulsive to my wife.

One cannot project his own propensities onto others.

The Church’s teachings on chastity are found in the Catechism as you well know and can be seen here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

There is absolutely nothing referring to the photography of one spouse to give to another. Or even of making videos of one another or of spouses together provided that they are kept in-house. It’s all about the creation for the purpose of sending them to third parties.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

There’s nothing there that says “It’s A-OK to take photos of yourself and send them to your spouse” but there’s nothing there that such an action would be illicit. And I bet it’s because there is no illusion when it comes to your spouse. There’s no fantasy world. It’s reality. The two are one and are one even when separated. Provided that there is no intent to send anything to third parties, there’s no offense.

Again, I wouldn’t personally do it because I’m not much to look at and don’t want such photos to exist. If my wife wants to send me one? Well… ok. I guess. I mean that’s great but I too am uncomfortable with the idea of someone else seeing it. And videos? NO THANKS and honestly my own porn addiction is actually the lowest of the reasons I don’t want a video. I see myself in the shower enough. I really don’t care to see any more.

 

[The_Bucket]

Exactly why the beautiful gift of common sense and reason can be used to identify the appropriate categorization.

In the eyes of the place that is currently at this moment hearing hundreds, if not thousands of men confess the sin of masturbation. I think it’s pretty easy to discern the morality of an action that leads to this sin.

I know it’s long, but read what I wrote. You can’t make a judgment based on that. Taken to its extreme, that’s what the Islamic world does. It blames women for men’s inability to live chastely which is bogus. I’m not a fan of very immodest dress, but women have the right to show their faces and wear shorts in the summer. Just because someone might lust and masturbate after seeing some woman running in exercise attire doesn’t mean SHE needs to cover it. It means he needs to cut the nonsense.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, I just want to say thank you to ffg, bmaj, nute, and others on this thread who have been so good about stressing the importance of prudence in this matter, even going so far as to share their own stories so that others will hopefully avoid falling into the same trap. This is not something to play around with if there is a risk it will lead to objectification and lust as it can lead to absolutely devastating consequences. And, yes, it is all too easy to have a false hope about such things. Again, as with all things which might be a near occasion of sin, this is an occasion where one must look at themselves honestly and discren their limits, they must follow the adage “know thyself” and then apply prudencce to determine which actions they will and will not take. Discussing this is a good reminder that we should all pray for others not only to attain purity, but that they might come to know themselvves well enough that they avoid the near occasion of sin while they are still battling to attain that complete purity of heart.

 

[sstrider]

Well, with respect to being hurt by rejection from the other, yes, at least to the extent that they hold back. However it is an empty security that will neither fulfill nor satisfy a person, nor will it lead them closer to Christ the way that a completely giving relationship will. As you point out, it is in giving that we receive.

Hi

Is this about all love between man and woman or love at an early time?

If a man and a woman give each over to the other in a complete way until death, is there any room for one to turn away the other?

Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est

“It is part of love’s growth towards higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive”

 

[CatholicFireman]

Happy Valentine’s Day everyone!!!

Happy Valentine’s day.

 

[thewanderer]

Hi

Is this about all love between man and woman or love at an early time?

If a man and a woman give each over to the other in a complete way until death, is there any room for one to turn away the other?

Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est

“It is part of love’s growth towards higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive”

Well, either really. There is thread after thread here on CAF telling stories of people who are hurting very badly because of their spouses behaviour. When one gives oneself completely as one does in a true marriage one is very vulnerable, that is precisely why such a giving of self must belong in a relationship of mutual self-giving. It is also why it is such a terrible deed when someone betrays his spouses trust and breaks his marriage vows. When both spouses are living their marriage vows there is a comfort and security in the vulnerability which one hands over to ones spouse because one knows that ones spouse is similarly commited. Does that make what I am trying to say anymore clear?

 

[ffg]

I know it’s long, but read what I wrote. You can’t make a judgment based on that. Taken to its extreme, that’s what the Islamic world does. It blames women for men’s inability to live chastely which is bogus. I’m not a fan of very immodest dress, but women have the right to show their faces and wear shorts in the summer. Just because someone might lust and masturbate after seeing some woman running in exercise attire doesn’t mean SHE needs to cover it. It means he needs to cut the nonsense.

I believe you are missing quite a few things here and introducing others, that are not necessarily related to the topic specifically, but in general does relate, and is good conversation. Better to hash this out here than test the waters.

In general, if you are doing anything that leads down an obvious conclusion of sin for any human, consider it a ‘near occasion’, and you are always doing good for yourself AND OTHERS by avoiding those paths all together.

act of contrition - ‘confess my sins, do penance, and avoid the near occasion of sin’.

All women know the power of looks.

Good Women are humbled by it, and know how to dress to help men ‘avoid the near occasion’. This is something that comes naturally for them in their security. (It’s also really obvious to them when this is not happening, especially at Church!)

ABSOLUTELY, when a woman puts on make-up to go workout and get into the tiniest outfit she can, does she know the power of her looks. She is doing it to be seen.

Is she an informed practicing Catholic? Then she should know better.

Is the woman responsible for the sins of another? No, but - If she is an informed practicing Catholic, I would say she could be sinning by dressing provocatively.

Something she should ask a priest about.

 

[thewanderer]

I believe you are missing quite a few things here and introducing others, that are not necessarily related to the topic specifically, but in general does relate, and is good conversation. Better to hash this out here than test the waters.

In general, if you are doing anything that leads down an obvious conclusion of sin for any human, consider it a ‘near occasion’, and you are always doing good for yourself AND OTHERS by avoiding those paths all together.

act of contrition - ‘confess my sins, do penance, and avoid the near occasion of sin’.

All women know the power of looks.

Good Women are humbled by it, and know how to dress to help men ‘avoid the near occasion’. This is something that comes naturally for them in their security. (It’s also really obvious to them when this is not happening, especially at Church!)

ABSOLUTELY, when a woman puts on make-up to go workout and get into the tiniest outfit she can, does she know the power of her looks. She is doing it to be seen.

Is she an informed practicing Catholic? Then she should know better.

Is the woman responsible for the sins of another? No, but - If she is an informed practicing Catholic, I would say she could be sinning by dressing provocatively.

Something she should ask a priest about.

You have a mistaken understanding of near occasion of sin. It is not just something that generally causes others to fall, it is something that you know is very likely to cause you personally to fall. People are different and have different strengths and different weaknessess. Some people when they see a pornographic image are simply disgusted, they are not tempted to lust after the person in the image, but instead feel disgust for the wrongfulness involved and pity for the people involved in it. For such people a pornographic image is not a near occasion of sin because it does not make it likely that they will fall into mortal sin. Similarly, being around desserts is a near occasion of sin for some, but not others. Some people have great self-control in this regard and others are completely lacking. This is why it is so important to honestly and prayerfully examine oneself to learn ones own limits. there is truly great wisdom to that saying “know thyself”.

One more point about the near occasion of sin. It is not always and everywhere sinful to put oneself in the near occasion of sin. If one has a sufficient reason to need to do something which will put them in a near occasion of sin than they may do so so long as they take every precaution they can to avoid said sin. the gravity of the reason to perform the action must be proportional to the strength of the temptation on a given person. So, for instance, a person who has a serious addiction to sweets and deserts. When they go into a certain grocery store they see the sales on sweets at the front and very often give in and buy tons of sweets and then go eat them all even though they know that doing such is sinful for them in their state of health etc. If that is the only store they can go to buy food then they are allowed to go in to buy their food even though it is a near occasion of sin for them personally. This same principle applies to other actions as well. We are called to prudent action, not to be paralyzed into inaction by fear.

 

[sstrider]

Well, either really. There is thread after thread here on CAF telling stories of people who are hurting very badly because of their spouses behaviour. When one gives oneself completely as one does in a true marriage one is very vulnerable, that is precisely why such a giving of self must belong in a relationship of mutual self-giving. It is also why it is such a terrible deed when someone betrays his spouses trust and breaks his marriage vows. When both spouses are living their marriage vows there is a comfort and security in the vulnerability which one hands over to ones spouse because one knows that ones spouse is similarly commited. Does that make what I am trying to say anymore clear?

Hi

Is this Church teaching?

Does giving in a complete way always mean being open to the chance of a bad thing happening?

If the Father and Son give each to the other, are they open to a bad thing happening?

What about perfect love?

 

[clem456]

You have a mistaken understanding of near occasion of sin. It is not just something that generally causes others to fall, it is something that you know is very likely to cause you personally to fall. People are different and have different strengths and different weaknessess. Some people when they see a pornographic image are simply disgusted, they are not tempted to lust after the person in the image, but instead feel disgust for the wrongfulness involved and pity for the people involved in it. For such people a pornographic image is not a near occasion of sin because it does not make it likely that they will fall into mortal sin. Similarly, being around desserts is a near occasion of sin for some, but not others. Some people have great self-control in this regard and others are completely lacking. This is why it is so important to honestly and prayerfully examine oneself to learn ones own limits. there is truly great wisdom to that saying “know thyself”.

One more point about the near occasion of sin. It is not always and everywhere sinful to put oneself in the near occasion of sin. If one has a sufficient reason to need to do something which will put them in a near occasion of sin than they may do so so long as they take every precaution they can to avoid said sin. the gravity of the reason to perform the action must be proportional to the strength of the temptation on a given person. So, for instance, a person who has a serious addiction to sweets and deserts. When they go into a certain grocery store they see the sales on sweets at the front and very often give in and buy tons of sweets and then go eat them all even though they know that doing such is sinful for them in their state of health etc. If that is the only store they can go to buy food then they are allowed to go in to buy their food even though it is a near occasion of sin for them personally. This same principle applies to other actions as well. We are called to prudent action, not to be paralyzed into inaction by fear.

Pornography is always and everywhere a near occasion of sin, by it’s nature.
Something like drinkiing a beer is not, by it’s nature, always a near occasion of sin.
There is an objective factor involved.