J
jmcrae
Guest
This is quite different than “looking at the menu,” though. You would not gaze with lust at your sisters and evaluate their potential as sex partners (which is what “looking at the menu” implies).
- Status
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
In this case it is admiring beauty not “Wow, that chick is hawt fantasizes”
R
Rocks_91
Guest
What are your thoughts on the parable I posted?
P
promethius
Guest
St Francis is quite correct that if one cannot tame lust from their mind that they should physically force themselves to look away from that which would tempt them to sin.
However, the parable he uses to illustrate this is horrendously wrong. The king is very much in the wrong for 1) assuming that the second servant was wicked, 2) because he presumes a lustful purpose simply because the servant dared to look at the queen.
The real issue the king had was that a common servant would dare to comment on any aspect of his life. I can see that, Kings often go wrongly when they think by their kingship that they are somehow eucharisted or holy. This king is suffering delusionally in this regard.
A real life parallel story would be Afghanistan: what was, in the 1950s, one of the most advanced middle eastern nations. No woman wore the burka. The people were well educated. The king at the time, however, had a harem, and was jealous that commoners might “steal a glance” at any of his tens of wives. Thus he covered them in burkas to ensure that no commoner DARED to look at his women. This, of course, influenced the upper class to follow suit with their wives. When the king was deposed, the mujahadeen came into influence, and then eventually the taliban. It is only today that women are free to begin to choose NOT to wear the burka if they don’t want to.
The sort of pride and envy it takes to make such a stance regarding women is horrendously judgemental and gravely debased. Modesty in dress is one thing, looking at the world with chastity goes with that, but the actions of the king in that parable were objectively wrong.
P
promethius
Guest
Okay,
Let’s repeat: the catechism says good christians are required to interpret statements in the most favorable manner possible, and if they can’t to politely determine from the source a clarification.
Are you doing that here? You seem to continually be twisting a story from Archbishop Fulton Sheen about his calling a woman into the ministry as a tale of lecherous debauchery.
Follow the catechism, jmcrae, and stop looking to be offended.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
On the one hand you have the messenger who ogled the Queen on the other you have Archbishop Sheen who gave a flight attendant a wonderful purpose, yeah totally comparable
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
I am not English so I do not know what it is to “look at the menu”. and as this things as subtle, the meaning of the sentence escapes me. Is it just to say that she is beautiful? is it erotic?
I think I will not post here anymore for I do not know enough the English expressions, what do they mean. How could i guess that “look at the menu” would be something other than to look at what you choose to eat?
By those distinctions, I wanted to say that the standard for the bishop is the same as the standard for a married man. Some disagree saying that the Bishop would be at a higher standard. I would say no, for one is faithful to his wife, the pries to “his marriage” to God.
I think that there are different ideologies here. I, myself, comment everything that I feel towards other women with my wife. Sometimes, other girl friends are shocked when I comment to my wife other women, but we are happily married and she knows that I feel safer saying to her my feelings than hiding them. And we discuss freely and i never was unfaithful to her neither i intend to be no matter what.
So, I think this is a question of culture. In Iran one uses burkha because hte men say that they are tempted bu women’s face or feet or ankles (ankles is above the feet, no?). Now suppose that you are told in the West that looking to a woman’s face or feet or ankle or hand is to “look at the menu”?
God Bless
E
EasterJoy
Guest
A menu is an advertisement for food available for purchase, from which the customer chooses in order to suit himself or herself. This is not how we are to look upon other human beings.AB Sheen was the Ordinary of my diocese and is almost a “folk-hero” here. I have read many of my books, and have talked to priests who served under him, his sense of humor was legendary!
As a married woman, ***and a chef, ***
this is actually one of my favorite expressions!
I find it un-natural & un-healthy to think once someone is married, or committed to celebacy, that they should not longer look at or appreciate the beauty of anyone else. Actually, if you really think about it, we are all made in the image & likeness of God, so maybe when I see that really handsome guy who makes my head turn, it’s just God’s way of reminding me that He is everywhere!!
Perhaps, as you say, the bishop only meant that celibates are not blind to the beauty God put into the world and, although they have to control their passions, also do not lose their emotional reaction to the sight of an attactive person of the opposite sex.
In charity, let us hope he must have meant that. In that case, he chose a most unfortunate analogy. He probably ought to be very careful about how he speaks about how he handles the passions he still has, as well as the manner in which he enjoys the beauty of the human body. When he is misunderstood, the consequences are more serious than when a similar faux pas is made by another Catholic.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It is a flippant and more-or-less popular figure of speech in which one speaks as if people of the opposite sex were something that those who are going to marry choose as one might choose a meal at a restaurant. The bishop allegedly said that it is OK for those who are not free to marry to scan (and presumably to enjoy contemplating) the choices that are available to those who are free to marry.
I don’t think that most people who use the analogy put a lot of thought into it. They’re only meaning that to merely cast your eyes on the choices other people have does not mean you are committing lust or envy or covetousness, let alone that you are contemplating a violation of your vows. After all, if the bishop were the marrying type, you’d hope he’d still be respectful of women he’d consider as a spouse.
I think the people who use the analogy would do well to re-think it. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to see that could be taken in a way that would make anyone on the “menu” want to give the look-but-don’t-buy crowd an indignant slap, because in the analogy they are objects available for purchase. I don’t think that is usually meant, but it pays to think a little more before making comments that are aimed at a person. Once they fly out, you can’t take the words back.
P
promethius
Guest
In charity? How about in moral obligation as enumerated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Anyone familiar with the work of Archbishop Sheen would know that it’s exactly what he meant. He was one of the greatest apologists for the church in the 20th century. His work makes all the apologists currently running around look like amatuers.
Seriously, if you’re not familiar with Archbishop Sheen, you should look up some of his programs. They’re hosted on youtube. I particularly like his series on false compassion.
Only if one is considering people who jump to the immediate conclusion of lust and degradation, something which is not present in this case at all.
That would be good advice for anyone, except that Archbishop Sheen, unfortunately, passed away about 32 years ago.
He is, however, a candidate in the process for canonization:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/advocates-press-archbishop-sheen-sainthood-cause-at-vatican/
Which is precisely why the catechism directs us to consider statements under their best intention and defines otherwise as “rash judgement” and an offense against truth.
After all, when we consider the context of the comment, rather than stripping it out of place and making rash judgements, we see that it is inoffensive. We are not called to guard every single word we say on the chance that they might be taken out of context… such a call would destroy almost all human interaction! Instead, we are called to seek understanding of the intent and meaning behind any statement or action made by others. The problem here is not the bishop, but the people who are wont to rashly judge.
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Can you imagine how boring speech would be if you had to eliminate every ironic phrase, every bit of hyperbole that might be interpreted out of context?
Besides that Jesus often made use of phrases in his teaching that were deliberately provocative and difficult to interpret.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will
be the members of his own household. ( Luke 12: 51 – 53)
ect…
All Fulton Sheen is doing is capturing the attention of his audience with a bit of humour. This discussion makes me glad that entertainment and art are not produced democratically. Can you imagine how bland things would be?
Besides that Jesus often made use of phrases in his teaching that were deliberately provocative and difficult to interpret.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will
be the members of his own household. ( Luke 12: 51 – 53)
ect…
All Fulton Sheen is doing is capturing the attention of his audience with a bit of humour. This discussion makes me glad that entertainment and art are not produced democratically. Can you imagine how bland things would be?
R
Rocks_91
Guest
I never made any comment about the Archbishop sending the woman into ministry for lepers in Vietnam. What we are talking about is whether it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. You asked me a question and I gave you the teaching of a great saint, wonderfully demonstrating whether it is appropriate to admire anyone’s beauty who is not your spouse. It seems, you don’t have an answer to that. Of course, St Francis would preach heresy rather than reaffirm Church teaching.
Why don’t you back up your statement that it is perfectly acceptable to “admire” the beauty of someone you are not married to with Church teaching? 
A parable by St Francis of Assisi:
P
patrick127
Guest
Did you guys actually watch the video link? Bishop Sheen was setting the story, giving details about a conversation with a woman. Now her beauty is an integral part of the story. He mentions it, paused, and took note of the crowd he was addressing and the followed up with the menu quip and even addressed his vow celibacy. He didn’t make the comment to the girl he made the crowd probably for the very reason we are having this discussion. It is odd to hear a man of the cloth address physical beauty in our context. But in his context beauty is a gift from God to be used like any other gift.
It is a wonderful story and shows what a few well placed words at even the most random of times can change our lives if we listen and are open to hear God’s message. These men like Bishop Sheen who sacrifice so much for our benefit should be given the benefit of the doubt…especially if taken out of context.
It is a wonderful story and shows what a few well placed words at even the most random of times can change our lives if we listen and are open to hear God’s message. These men like Bishop Sheen who sacrifice so much for our benefit should be given the benefit of the doubt…especially if taken out of context.
R
Rocks_91
Guest
Setting the archbishop aside for a moment, the main point of this thread rises from my concern over whether it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. Beauty is appealing. Beauty is tempting. If you aren’t tempted by it, why would you notice it? Sin is not a feeling you get in your stomach. Sin is a choice you make, an act of the will. Is it acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your husband/wife? I gave an excellent example by St Francis about true purity and modesty of the eyes. If you think that St Francis was wrong and claim it is acceptable, then back up your view with Church teaching.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
You’re getting the wrong meaning out of itI never made any comment about the Archbishop sending the woman into ministry for lepers in Vietnam. What we are talking about is whether it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. You asked me a question and I gave you the teaching of a great saint, wonderfully demonstrating whether it is appropriate to admire anyone’s beauty who is not your spouse. It seems, you don’t have an answer to that. Of course, St Francis would preach heresy rather than reaffirm Church teaching.
R
Rocks_91
Guest
And what is the meaning you gather from that parable, pray tell.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Maybe you have never felt that you were an item on “the menu”? Whether the expression is hyperbole or not depends on how hungry the look is that goes with it. That makes all the difference in the world.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
I’m talking about what Archbishop Sheen saidAnd what is the meaning you gather from that parable, pray tell.
P
patrick127
Guest
I don’t think St. Francis is wrong at all! I love St. Francis, I named my oldest son after him.Setting the archbishop aside for a moment, the main point of this thread rises from my concern over whether it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. Beauty is appealing. Beauty is tempting. If you aren’t tempted by it, why would you notice it? Sin is not a feeling you get in your stomach. Sin is a choice you make, an act of the will. Is it acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your husband/wife? I gave an excellent example by St Francis about true purity and modesty of the eyes. If you think that St Francis was wrong and claim it is acceptable, then back up your view with Church teaching.
I will paraphrase a letter the Archbishop recieved from the woman after she spent time with the lepers in VietNam…she says: I don’t know if they (the lepers) see beauty when they look at me, but I do when I look at them (the lepers)
I think that Bishop Sheen was sending a very similar message to that of St. Francis and the story he tells goes along with St. Francis’. As the Bishop notes outward beauty is temporary; I take his story to mean that true beauty lies within all people. God creates all of us in his image…see people for what they are not what they look like. I would ask that if his opening remarks really offend you, that you give him a little room to get his point across.
P
promethius
Guest
So the minister you said was lusting, violating the commandments, and setting a bad example was not Archbishop Sheen discussing the calling of a woman into ministry for lepers?
I’m confused.
What St Francis notes is about a particular personal devotion: not a universal teaching for the entire church. If you’re NEVER allowed to see a woman or even consider if you might find her attractive, how are you going to get married? St Francis even, according to St Josemaria Escriva, rolled in the snow to defend his purity. When was the last time you rolled in the snow? He prohibited the brothers under his direction from being Godfathers to anyone… are we to abolish godparents because of this?
You are taking a teaching that St Francis made to a specific group of people and applying it as a general and universal teaching of the church.
So, perhaps you can show us a church teaching in the form of a magisterial document, or even, let’s say, a papal bull, catechism quote, or council statement, which says that people are not even to look at members of the opposite sex (or members of the same sex who are younger than them, if we’re going to establish St Francis’ personal devotion as the norm for all)
St Francis also said: “To deal with women and still to escape their harmful influence is, except to a man well-tried in virtue, as easy as to walk through fire and not burn the soles of his feet”
Let me ask: is an Archbishop and candidate for the Sainthood who is about to be labelled a servant of the faith (one step shy of beatitude) a “man well-tried in virtue”? If you think that Archbishop Sheen was not a man well tried in virtue, perhaps you should contact Rome and discuss that with those who are moving his case forward at present…
Side note: Finally, I might also point out that your version of the parable quoted is different from the one marked with the imprimateur in so far as in the real version, the servant not only commented on the beauty of the queen, but also commented that the one to whom she belonged must be well satisfied… a totally different statement than merely saying that the queen is beautiful.
- Status