pornography?

[billcu1]

The CCC says pornography is the sacred act between to people being in the conjugal act and displaying it. I would assume this would mean Playboy which there is only nudity would be out too. What about Maxims or girly calendars where they are fully clothed just in swimsuits and such?

 

[MichaelHowling]

Where does the catechism say this?

Pornography has nothing to do with the sacred…it’s the distortion of the sacred. Love turned in on itself is lust and that’s what pornography is…the misuse of our calling and what our bodies are made for. Assult on the soul, the mind and heart and abuse of the opposite sex by turning them into an object and slapping their personhood and God in whom who’s image they were made in and who’s child they are.

 

[MichaelHowling]

Any picture or article that distorts love our objectifys an individual is a bad thing.

 

[R_C]

I still remember this great movie from the 70s on St. Philip Neri…the devil comes as a woman to tempt him, and he smiles and says: “Do you think I am a young boy? The temptation is not there (aiming his finger at her), it is here! (touching his head)”.

Lust is the disordered enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is grave matter and grounds for mortal sin. I can lust even by looking at a very modestly dressed woman!

Pornography relates specifically to the display of the sexual act. It is by all means not the only offense to lust, nor is it the only immoral thing to be avoided. There is much to be avoided in today’s world, and we ought to train ourselves in the discipline of self-mastery in order to achieve the balance of chastity and live our natural sexual drive in a healthy way.

It’s better to be away from what is immoral. Now, seeing something like that does not automatically become a sin In fact, the sin is indulging in the thought or vision rather than rejecting it. The saints who lived ascetic lives and had no access to the Internet were tempted with visions of lustful things (now that’s harsh temptation) and they did not sin. This means the vision is not sinful if we did not seek to be exposed to it and if, having been exposed, we turn away, first inwardly, then outwardly.

 

[billcu1]

I still remember this great movie from the 70s on St. Philip Neri…the devil comes as a woman to tempt him, and he smiles and says: “Do you think I am a young boy? The temptation is not there (aiming his finger at her), it is here! (touching his head)”.

Lust is the disordered enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is grave matter and grounds for mortal sin. I can lust even by looking at a very modestly dressed woman!

Pornography relates specifically to the display of the sexual act. It is by all means not the only offense to lust, nor is it the only immoral thing to be avoided. There is much to be avoided in today’s world, and we ought to train ourselves in the discipline of self-mastery in order to achieve the balance of chastity and live our natural sexual drive in a healthy way.

It’s better to be away from what is immoral. Now, seeing something like that does not automatically become a sin In fact, the sin is indulging in the thought or vision rather than rejecting it. The saints who lived ascetic lives and had no access to the Internet were tempted with visions of lustful things (now that’s harsh temptation) and they did not sin. This means the vision is not sinful if we did not seek to be exposed to it and if, having been exposed, we turn away, first inwardly, then outwardly.

So what of the single man. How does he live his sex drive in a natural way? Denial of existance it seems to be impressed by what I’ve read so far.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Straight Pornography==>Fetishism==>Homosexuality

The pornography is straight, Male(s) and Female(s) actors. Viewing porn tends to cause the viewer to empathizes with the male and his penis, making the sex organs of the same-sex actor into a fetish. The male viewer, for example, now has the penis as a fetish and seeks sexual gratification from penis, thus becoming a homosexual. At first, one masturbates while fantasizing with his newly created fetish. This does not happen all at once, but does while watching porn and masturbating over a period of time. Sooner or later the viewer becomes tired of just masturbating, and seeks a homosexual partner to act out upon his newly acquired fetish… The fetish need not necessarily be the genitals, but may include other parts of the body, such and the butt and anus.

Amazingly, evil spirits are at work at every step of the process, forever tempting the viewer to complete the process by leading the viewer to fetishism and homo erotic tendencies.

 

[billcu1]

Straight Pornography==>Fetishism==>Homosexuality

The pornography is straight, Male(s) and Female(s) actors. Viewing porn tends to cause the viewer to empathizes with the male and his penis, making the sex organs of the same-sex actor into a fetish. The male viewer, for example, now has the penis as a fetish and seeks sexual gratification from penis, thus becoming a homosexual. At first, one masturbates while fantasizing with his newly created fetish. This does not happen all at once, but does while watching porn and masturbating over a period of time. Sooner or later the viewer becomes tired of just masturbating, and seeks a homosexual partner to act out upon his newly acquired fetish… The fetish need not necessarily be the genitals, but may include other parts of the body, such and the butt and anus.

Amazingly, evil spirits are at work at every step of the process, forever tempting the viewer to complete the process by leading the viewer to fetishism and homo erotic tendencies.

Makes sense. I think people give a little too much power away to demons and things that hang around. In that sense I guess I agree with Theresa of Avilla.

 

[R_C]

So what of the single man. How does he live his sex drive in a natural way? Denial of existance it seems to be impressed by what I’ve read so far.

Ask your confessor, who took a lifelong solemn vow of celibacy. He’ll gladly explain

 

[billcu1]

Ask your confessor, who took a lifelong solemn vow of celibacy. He’ll gladly explain

There is the single vocation. That might be what I’m looking at. A man has to have something to offer a woman to gain her devotion. Or she’ll just be a “wayside fire” as Krishna said of lust Vs love. But the question is…what is expected of this vocation. The single vocation.

 

[davidv]

There is the single vocation. That might be what I’m looking at. A man has to have something to offer a woman to gain her devotion. Or she’ll just be a “wayside fire” as Krishna said of lust Vs love. But the question is…what is expected of this vocation. The single vocation.

Faithfulness

 

[askned]

Give me a break…porn is evil, evil for the pornographers, for those engaging in the acts, for those who watch it and enable it…God has written the law on your heart and you already know it is wrong…

 

[edwest2]

The CCC says pornography is the sacred act between to people being in the conjugal act and displaying it. I would assume this would mean Playboy which there is only nudity would be out too. What about Maxims or girly calendars where they are fully clothed just in swimsuits and such?

Girly calendars and fully clothed? Maxim? Both are near occasions for sin. Best to avoid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So what of the single man. How does he live his sex drive in a natural way? Denial of existance it seems to be impressed by what I’ve read so far.

What about his sex drive? Why not be celibate if you’re single?

Peace,
Ed

 

[billcu1]

What about his sex drive? Why not be celibate if you’re single?

Peace,
Ed

Celibacy no problem. But suppression of such things as natural sex drive. Doesn’t sound right for some reason.

 

[edwest2]

Celibacy no problem. But suppression of such things as natural sex drive. Doesn’t sound right for some reason.

You can ask a priest about it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[R_C]

There is the single vocation. That might be what I’m looking at. A man has to have something to offer a woman to gain her devotion. Or she’ll just be a “wayside fire” as Krishna said of lust Vs love. But the question is…what is expected of this vocation. The single vocation.

The single vocation is a calling to a higher sort of love, a spiritual love. Regardless of whether we embrace it as lay faithful, or through a vow of celibacy like the clergy, or through a vow of chastity like the religious, there is a common point: the equilibrium of the virtue. We do not repress the natural sexual drive, we simply elevate it to a higher realm, we sublimate it, we satisfy it in a purely spiritual way. It is like closing our eyes in order to better appreciate the brightness of the light…like losing our life in order to find it…those whom God calls to the single life will be endowed with the necessary grace to live it, and if by means of discernment they discover and embrace their vocation, they find true joy and their heart is at peace.

I know a single man who struggled with lust since the age of reason, who loves the beauty of women profoundly, who does not yet know whether or not he shall ever marry, and yet since his conversion finds no distress in the absence of lust in his life (except during times of temptation), and instead feels liberated, in the manner of one who runs in an open field after sitting for decades in a small basement.

My advice of speaking to a priest was because he can explain that it is not and has never been a matter of repression, and he can do so particularly well because of his pastoral ministry. A single lay faithful, I believe, hardly ever is truly convinced that single life is his vocation…he is probably open to married or consecrated life as well…only time will tell…

 

[aspirant]

Celibacy no problem. But suppression of such things as natural sex drive. Doesn’t sound right for some reason.

Suppression is not chastity, no matter how successful it may appear to be. Suppression is a “no” to sensual desire and various sexual acts, but chastity is a “yes” to loving persons for their own sake. Pope John Paul II wrote some wonderful material about this in his theology of the body and, even earlier, as Karol Wojtyla in Love & Responsibility.

For example:
Karol Wojtyla:

Chastity is very often understood as a ‘blind’ inhibition of sensuality and of physical impulses such that the values of the ‘body’ and of sex are pushed down into the subconscious, where they await an opportunity to explode. This is an obviously erroneous conception of the virtue of chastity, which, if it is practiced only in this way, does indeed create the danger of such ‘explosions’… The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of ‘the body and sex.’

A related article:
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0132.htm

 

[billcu1]

Suppression is not chastity, no matter how successful it may appear to be. Suppression is a “no” to sensual desire and various sexual acts, but chastity is a “yes” to loving persons for their own sake. Pope John Paul II wrote some wonderful material about this in his theology of the body and, even earlier, as Karol Wojtyla in Love & Responsibility.

For example:

A related article:
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0132.htm

I am just trying to go by what the CCC says. I am reading that you just don’t fall into mortal sin without knowing it. Trying to understand the ins and outs of lust kinda confuses me. Especially with pornography. What one calls porn another doesn’t. I need to know what God says. Venial sin is said to be different. Catholic education may be a good site I will have to check it. Meanwhile for those who might be interested in doing what’s right anyway I found this page to be very helpful.

surasa.net/lust_vs_love.html

It seems to be a common thing among catholics to not be educated. I’ve also read that’s not an excuse for mortal sin. So I guess I’m trying to understand more than lust here with the porn issue but what exactly is a mortal sin too.

 

[R_C]

Meanwhile for those who might be interested in doing what’s right anyway I found this page to be very helpful.

surasa.net/lust_vs_love.html

We could never follow a teaching on faith and morals other than solid Christian doctrine as preserved in the Catholic Church. All other teachings may have some good and truth, but they are intermingled with error and can lead to trouble. So to do what’s right I do what Christ told me: if I look at a woman with the intention of possessing her, I am guilty of sin. If I marry, I marry one woman until we live and I look at no other women. Simple and sweet.

 

[billcu1]

We could never follow a teaching on faith and morals other than solid Christian doctrine as preserved in the Catholic Church. All other teachings may have some good and truth, but they are intermingled with error and can lead to trouble. So to do what’s right I do what Christ told me: if I look at a woman with the intention of possessing her, I am guilty of sin. If I marry, I marry one woman until we live and I look at no other women. Simple and sweet.

lol. I see Krishna and our lord to be of the same spirit. Mind you there are cultural differences but that helped me. Our Lord’s words are first. I’m open minded and I hope not an apostate.