Priests are allowed to "look at the menu"?

[Rocks_91]

I don’t think St. Francis is wrong at all! I love St. Francis, I named my oldest son after him.

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.

I understand your point about the archbishop perfectly, and I already said in one of my posts that it’s perfectly acceptable if he didn’t mean what I thought he meant.

However, a lot of you in this thread made the claim It is perfectly ok to admire the sight of a good looking man/woman / it is not a sin to admire the beauty of one who is not your spouse / it is not wrong to admire God’s handiwork and perfectly ok to admire people’s beauty

To them, I say, back up your claims with Church teaching. I gave St Francis’ parable and it’s point is very clear.

 

[Rocks_91]

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.

Again, what I said was “it is despicable for any man to look at a woman he is not married to as anything other than a sister in Christ, and to do otherwise would be a sin” and that was in reply to another person’s post asking if it was acceptable for married men/single men to look at other women. I never made a claim that the archbishop was lusting, only asked for opinions about that quote, as written in my first post.

Stop trying to spread falsehoods.

 

[promethius]

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.

Beauty is, quite simply, a grace given by God. It is tempting to profane it by twisting it into lust, but that does not mean that something which is a gift from God cannot be noted or used (appropriately) to give glory to God.

If you aren’t tempted by it, why would you notice it?

I notice that a monet is a beautiful work of art. I assure you, I’m not tempted to lust after framed paintings.

Sin is not a feeling you get in your stomach. Sin is a choice you make, an act of the will.

exactly why it is lingering on impure sexual thoughts that is a violation of lust, not the appropriate noting of the fact that someone has a particular grace from God.

Is it acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your husband/wife?

provided it is not a violation against chastity, there’s nothing forbidding it.

I gave an excellent example by St Francis about true purity and modesty of the eyes

Except that your version is a misquote because it does not accurately portray the comment made by the second servant in the story as St Francis told it.

If you think that St Francis was wrong and claim it is acceptable, then back up your view with Church teaching.

You cannot prove a negative. If you want us to believe that the church teaches we are forbidden from even looking at a member of the opposite sex or admiring their God given graces in an appropriate way, you’ll have to produce the documentation.

What you have provided is a misquoted version of a parable that St Francis told as instruction to his disciples directly under his supervision. He did not intend it as a universal teaching of all people.

 

[Job42]

I understand your point about the archbishop perfectly, and I already said in one of my posts that it’s perfectly acceptable if he didn’t mean what I thought he meant.

However, a lot of you in this thread made the claim It is perfectly ok to admire the sight of a good looking man/woman / it is not a sin to admire the beauty of one who is not your spouse / it is not wrong to admire God’s handiwork and perfectly ok to admire people’s beauty

To them, I say, back up your claims with Church teaching. I gave St Francis’ parable and it’s point is very clear.

Well for starters the parable by St. Francis (or your interpretation of it’s meaning) doesn’t constitute Church teaching. But since we are using stories of the saints…

Once upon a time 1500 hundred years ago, there was a Bishop called Nonnus. Despite the corruption of society all around him, he understood that God was all powerful and on whom all rested. God has designed life and therefore it was beautiful. One day Bishop Nonnus was walking down the road with another clergyman. A beautiful woman, probably a prostitute came walking towards them.

The clergyman turned away his eyes in order not to lust after the woman. He then turned his eyes towards the Bishop and saw that he was tearful. He realised that Nonnus had not turned away his gaze, rather he had looked straight at the prostitute. He was somewhat ruffled and concerned, then he asked him, “Brother Bishop, why did you not turn away your eyes from this woman?” Nonnus replied, “What a tragedy it is that such beauty would be sold to the lusts of men.” This took the clergyman by complete surprise and even the woman herself.

Later the woman found Nonnus and due to his loving response, had a conversion to Christianity. She had an encounter of piercing love in Nonnus’ simple, chaste look. This woman is now known as Saint Pelagia.

 

[promethius]

Again, what I said was “it is despicable for any man to look at a woman he is not married to as anything other than a sister in Christ, and to do otherwise would be a sin” and that was in reply to another person’s post asking if it was acceptable for married men/single men to look at other women. I never made a claim that the archbishop was lusting, only asked for opinions about that quote, as written in my first post.

Stop trying to spread falsehoods.

and you followed that statement up with “I think this priest is setting a bad example”

Since saints are supposed to lead lives which render them as champions of the faith (aka, a good example), I really think you should write about your opinion to the Congregation for Saints’ Causes so that they can put a halt to this “bad example” being esteemed before the church for his ministry (which includes this well known quote).

 

[Rocks_91]

You cannot prove a negative. What you have provided is a misquoted version of a parable that St Francis told as instruction to his disciples directly under his supervision.

You are making a claim that it is acceptable to admire a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. That’s not a negative, is it? Maybe then you can tell me the exact version of that parable.

and you followed that statement up with “I think this priest is setting a bad example”

What was left unsaid was, if he thinks that it is acceptable.

Job42:

The clergyman turned away his eyes in order not to lust after the woman. He then turned his eyes towards the Bishop and saw that he was tearful. He realised that Nonnus had not turned away his gaze, rather he had looked straight at the prostitute. He was somewhat ruffled and concerned, then he asked him, “Brother Bishop, why did you not turn away your eyes from this woman?” Nonnus replied, “What a tragedy it is that such beauty would be sold to the lusts of men.” This took the clergyman by complete surprise and even the woman herself.

completely irrelevant. i don’t see how your story has any bearing on the subject of admiring a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. Nonnus was looking with pity at her situation, not admiring her beauty.

 

[Job42]

You are making a claim that it is acceptable to admire a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. That’s not a negative, is it? Maybe then you can tell me the exact version of that parable.

What was left unsaid was, if he thinks that it is acceptable.

completely irrelevant. i don’t see how your story has any bearing on the subject of admiring a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. Nonnus was looking with pity at her situation, not admiring her beauty.

I don’t see how your parable has anything to do with Church teaching. St. Francis is one of the greatest saints to ever live but so was St. Thomas Aquinas, and he said a lot of great things, but he also made a few errors. (and btw I think my story is quite relevant)

 

[Rocks_91]

I don’t see how your parable has anything to do with Church teaching. St. Francis is one of the greatest saints to ever live but so was St. Thomas Aquinas, and he said a lot of great things, but he also made a few errors. (and btw I think my story is quite relevant)

Are you saying this parable was one of those errors? His teaching reflects the meaning of holiness and virtue. If his teachings have nothing to do with Church teaching, why is he called a saint? I can think of no saint who gazed at a woman who wasn’t his spouse as anything other than his sister in Christ and was commended for it. Part of the tradition of the Church are the lives of it’s saints, who make up the Church Triumphant. If you say it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse, then back up your claim with Church teaching. Where is the Church teaching which says that it is acceptable?

And I fail to see the relevance of the story you posted.

 

[choliks]

If I may jump in…

Didn’t bishop Nonnus notice and admire the beauty of the woman? I thought that made it relevant.

Here’s an article written by Jimmy Akin…

jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html

 

[EasterJoy]

If you say it is acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse, then back up your claim with Church teaching. Where is the Church teaching which says that it is acceptable?

You aren’t saying that the Church has deliniated every acceptable thought, and that all thoughts not so described must be forbidden? That is ridiculous. Rather, if you want to make a case that a thought or action is forbidden, tell us where the Church says that a man cannot look at a woman?

Our Lord did not say, “If you look on a woman, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart”, but rather “If you look on a woman with lust you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.” Now, considering his hyperbole that talks about ripping an eye out rather than to sin with the eye, I suppose that those who can’t look at a woman without lusting after her might try looking at women as little as possible, but that is a particular case. That doesn’t make it wrong for everyone, or we’d all have to blind ourselves, wouldn’t we?

As far as the St. Francis story goes, keep in mind that perhaps he was given to a little hyperbole, too.

 

[Rocks_91]

You aren’t saying that the Church has deliniated every acceptable thought, and that all thoughts not so described must be forbidden? That is ridiculous. Rather, if you want to make a case that a thought or action is forbidden, tell us where the Church says that a man cannot look at a woman?

I’m saying that just because the Church may not have explicitly stated that something is bad, it does not make it morally acceptable. Yet, you can judge for yourself if all the lives of the saints who taught purity and modesty of the eyes can be dispensed so easily. Their teaching about this would have been opposed by the Church if it were not true. I have given an example of a saint highly respected which teaches that it is not a good thing. Yet, you can give me no example of a saint or a Church teaching which says that it is acceptable and should be commended.

 

[Rocks_91]

This is the standard we are expected to hold.
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori:

Extracts from, ‘The True Spouse of Jesus Christ’

Almost all our rebellious passions spring from unguarded looks; for, generally speaking, it is by the sight that all inordinate affections and desires are excited.

Hence, holy Job made a covenant with his eyes, that he would not so much as think upon a virgin.

Why did he say that he would not so much as think upon a virgin? Should he not have said that he made a covenant with his eyes not to look at a virgin? No; he very properly said that he would not think upon a virgin; because thoughts are so connected with looks, that the former cannot be separated from the latter, and therefore, to escape the molestation of evil imaginations, he resolved never to fix his eyes on a woman.

St. Augustine says: “The thought follows the look; delight comes after the thought; and consent after delight.” From the look proceeds the thought; from the thought the desire; for, as St. Francis de Sales says, what is not seen is not desired, and to the desire succeeds the consent.

If Eve had not looked at the forbidden apple, she should not have fallen; but because she saw that it was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and beautiful to behold, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.

The devil first tempts us to look, then to desire, and afterwards to consent.

St. Jerome says that Satan requires “only a beginning on our part.” If we begin, he will complete our destruction.

A deliberate glance at a person of a different sex often enkindles an infernal spark, which consumes the soul. “Through the eyes,” says St. Bernard, “the deadly arrows of love enter.” The first dart that wounds and frequently robs chaste souls of life finds admission through the eyes. By them David, the beloved of God, fell. By them was Solomon, once the inspired of the Holy Ghost, drawn into the greatest abominations. Oh! how many are lost by indulging their sight!

The eyes must be carefully guarded by all who expect not to be obliged to join in the lamentation of Jeremiah: “My eye hath wasted my soul.” By the introduction of sinful affections my eyes have destroyed my soul. Hence St. Gregory says, that “the eyes, because they draw us to sin, must be depressed.”

If not restrained, they will become instruments of hell, to force the soul to sin almost against its will.

“He that looks at a dangerous object,” continues the saint, “begins to will what he wills not.” It was this the inspired writer intended to express when he said of Holofernes, that the beauty of Judith made his soul captive.

Seneca says that “blindness is a part of innocence.” And Tertullian relates that a certain pagan philosopher, to free himself from impurity, plucked out his eyes. Such an act would be unlawful in us: but he that desires to preserve chastity must avoid the sight of objects that are apt to excite unchaste thoughts. “Gaze not about,” says the Holy Ghost, “upon another’s beauty; . . . hereby lust is enkindled as a fire.” Gaze not upon another’s beauty; for from looks arise evil imaginations, by which an impure fire is lighted up.
continued…

 

[Rocks_91]

Hence St. Francis de Sales used to say, that “they who wish to exclude an enemy from the city must keep the gates locked.”

Hence, to avoid the sight of dangerous objects, the saints were accustomed to keep their eyes almost continually fixed on the earth, and to abstain even from looking at innocent objects.

After being a novice for a year, St. Bernard could not tell whether his cell was vaulted. In consequence of never raising his eyes from the ground, he never knew that there were but three windows to the church of the monastery, in which he spent his novitiate.

He once, without perceiving a lake, walked along its banks for nearly an entire day; and hearing his companions speak about it, he asked when they had seen it.

St. Peter of Alcantara kept his eyes constantly cast down, so that he did not know the brothers with whom he conversed. It was by the voice, and not by the countenance, that he was able to recognize them.

The saints were particularly cautious not to look at persons of a different sex.

St. Hugh, bishop, when compelled to speak with women, never looked at them in the face.

St. Clare would never fix her eyes on the face of a man. She was greatly afflicted because, when raising her eyes at the elevation to see the consecrated host, she once involuntarily saw the countenance of the priest.

St. Aloysius never looked at his own mother in the face.

It is related of St. Arsenius, that a noble lady went to visit him in the desert, to beg of him to recommend her to God. When the saint perceived that his visitor was a woman, he turned away from her, she then said to him: “Arsenius, since you will neither seen or hear me, at least remember me in your prayers.” “No,” replied the saint, “but I will beg of God to make me forget you, and never more to think of you.”

From these examples may be seen the folly and temerity of some religious who, though they have not the sanctity of a St. Clare, still gaze around from the terrace, in the parlor, and in the church, upon every object that presents itself, even on persons of a different sex. And notwithstanding their unguarded looks, they expect to be free from temptations and from the danger of sin.

For having once looked deliberately at a woman who was gathering ears of corn, the Abbot Pastor was tormented for forty years by temptations against chastity.

St. Gregory states that the temptation, to conquer which St. Benedict rolled himself in thorns, arose from one incautious glance at a woman.

St. Jerome, though living in a cave at Bethlehem, in continual prayer and macerations of the flesh, was terribly molested by the remembrance of ladies whom he had long before seen in Rome. Why should not similar molestations be the lot of the religious who wilfully and without reserve fixes her eyes on persons of a different sex?

“It is not,” says St. Francis de Sales, “the seeing of objects so much as the fixing of our eyes upon them that proves most pernicious.” “If,” says St. Augustine, “our eyes should by chance fall upon others, let us take care never to fix them upon any one.” Father Manareo, when taking leave of St. Ignatius for a distant place, looked steadfastly in his face: for this look he was corrected by the saint.

From the conduct of St. Ignatius on this occasion, we learn that it was not becoming in religious to fix their eyes on the countenance of a person even of the same sex, particularly if the person is young. But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. “It is not lawful,” says St. Gregory, “to behold what it is not lawful to covet.”

The evil thought that proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul. Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.

The indulgence of the eyes, if not productive of any other evil, at least destroys recollection during the time of prayer. For, the images and impressions caused by the objects seen before, or by the wandering of the eyes, during prayer, will occasion a thousand distractions, and banish all recollection from the soul. It is certain that without recollection a religious can pay but little attention to the practice of humility, patience, mortification, or of the other virtues. Hence it is her duty to abstain from all looks of curiosity, which distract her mind from holy thoughts. Let her eyes be directed only to objects which raise the soul to God.

St. Bernard used to say, that to fix the eyes upon the earth contributes to keep the heart in heaven. “Where,” says St. Gregory, “Christ is, there modesty is found.” Wherever Jesus Christ dwells by love, there modesty is practised.

However, I do not mean to say that the eyes should never be raised or never fixed on any object. No; but they ought to be directed only to what inspires devotion, to sacred images, and to the beauty of creation, which elevate the soul to the contemplation of the divinity. Except in looking at such objects, a religious should in general keep the eyes cast down, and particulary in places where they may fall upon dangerous objects. In conversing with men, she should never roll the eyes about to look at them, and much less to look at them a second time.

To practise modesty of the eyes is the duty of a religious, not only because it is necessary for her own improvement in virtue, but also because it is necessary for the edification of others.
continued…

 

[Rocks_91]

God only knows the human heart: man sees only the exterior actions, and by them he is edified or scandalized. A man, says the Holy Ghost, is known by his look. By the countenance the interior is known. Hence, like St. John the Baptist, a religious should be a burning and shining light. She ought to be a torch burning with charity, and shining resplendent by her modesty, to all who behold her. To religious the following words of the Apostle are particularly applicable: We are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men." And again: Let your modesty be known to all men: the Lord is nigh. Religious are attentively observed by the angels and by men; and therefore their modesty should be made manifest before all; if they do not practise modesty, terrible shall be the account which they must render to God on the day of judgment. Oh! what devotion does a modest religious inspire, what edification does she give, by keeping her eyes always cast down!

St. Francis of Assisi once said to his companion, that he was going out to preach. After walking through the town, with his eyes fixed on the ground, he returned to the convent. His companion asked him when he would preach the sermon. We have, replied the saint, by the modesty of our looks, given an excellent instruction to all who saw us.

It is related of St. Aloysius, that when he walked through Rome the students would stand in the streets to observe and admire his great modesty.

St. Ambrose says, that to men of the world the modesty of the saints is a powerful exhortation to amendment of life.

“The look of a just man is an admonition to many.” The saint adds: “How delightful it is to do good to others by your appearance!”

It is related of St. Bernardine of Sienna, that even when a secular, his presence was sufficient to restrain the licentiousness of his young companions, who, as soon as they saw him, were accustomed to give to one another notice that he was coming. On his arrival they became silent or changed the subject of their conversation. It is also related of St. Gregory of Nyssa, and of St. Ephrem, that their very appearance inspired piety, and that the sanctity and modesty of their exterior edified and improved all that beheld them.

When Innocent II visited St. Bernard at Clairvaux, such was the exterior modesty of the saint and of his monks, that the Pope and his cardinals were moved to tears of devotion. Surius relates a very extraordinary fact of St. Lucian, a monk and martyr. By his modesty he induced so many pagans to embrace the faith, that the Emperor Maximian fearing that he should be converted to Christianity by the appearance of the saint, would not allow the holy man to be brought within his view, but spoke to him from behind a screen.

That our Redeemer was the first who taught, by his example, modesty of the eyes, may, as a learned author remarks, be inferred from the holy evangelists, who say that on some occasion he raised his eyes. “And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples. When Jesus therefore had lifted up his eyes.” From these passages we may conclude that the Redeemer ordinarily kept his eyes cast down. Hence the Apostle, praising the modesty of the Saviour, says: I beseech you, by the mildness and modesty of Christ.

I shall conclude this subject with what St. Basil said to his monks: If, my children, we desire to raise the soul towards heaven, let us direct the eyes towards the earth.

From the moment we awake in the morning, let us pray continually in the words of holy David: “Turn away my eyes, that they may not behold vanity.”

 

[eegardner]

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.

Very well said! If I acted like that king every time someone said my wife and/or daughter was pretty, I would not have any friends or neighbours left. I would be shunned by all that I know.

The king’s actions are too extreme and overreacting.

You can appreciate the looks of the opposite sex without desire or lust. You can look at someone like an athlete or dancer and notice that all the work they do has resulted in them having a good physical form without wanting to “explore” that form.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You are making a claim that it is acceptable to admire a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. That’s not a negative, is it? Maybe then you can tell me the exact version of that parable.

What was left unsaid was, if he thinks that it is acceptable.

completely irrelevant. i don’t see how your story has any bearing on the subject of admiring a woman’s beauty who is not your spouse. Nonnus was looking with pity at her situation, not admiring her beauty.

That’s completely relevant, Archbishop Sheen was far more like Nonnus than the messenger

 

[Rocks_91]

That’s completely relevant, Archbishop Sheen was far more like Nonnus than the messenger

Maybe so.

But is it a sin to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse? That’s what I want to discuss, and the main reason for which I started this thread. Archbishop Sheen’s motives may have been perfectly innocent, and that’s wonderful. God bless him. But I’m making a point to those who say it is perfectly acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. And I encourage everyone to read the writing of St Alphonsus which I posted.

 

[patrick127]

Maybe so.

But is it a sin to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse? That’s what I want to discuss, and the main reason for which I started this thread. Archbishop Sheen’s motives may have been perfectly innocent, and that’s wonderful. God bless him. But I’m making a point to those who say it is perfectly acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. And I encourage everyone to read the writing of St Alphonsus which I posted.

You seem hung up on the word admire. Is it a sin if I notice the beauty of a woman as opposed to admiring the beauty of a woman? Admire as a word implies taking pleasure in; and you seem to be make the leap from there to lust.

 

[Rocks_91]

You seem hung up on the word admire. Is it a sin if I notice the beauty of a woman as opposed to admiring the beauty of a woman? Admire as a word implies taking pleasure in; and you seem to be make the leap from there to lust.

An accidental glance or falling of eyes upon a person may not be sinful, but the words appreciate/admire consist in a deliberate glance.

The devil first tempts us to look, then to desire, and afterwards to consent.
St. Jerome says that Satan requires “only a beginning on our part.” If we begin, he will complete our destruction.
A deliberate glance at a person of a different sex often enkindles an infernal spark, which consumes the soul.

“It is not,” says St. Francis de Sales, “the seeing of objects so much as the fixing of our eyes upon them that proves most pernicious.” “If,” says St. Augustine, "our eyes should by chance fall upon others, let us take care never to fix them upon any one."

A deliberate glance at a person of a different sex often enkindles an infernal spark, which consumes the soul.

**“It is not lawful,” says St. Gregory, “to behold what it is not lawful to covet.” **

"Gaze not about," says the Holy Ghost, "upon another’s beauty;

Hence, to avoid the sight of dangerous objects, the saints were accustomed to keep their eyes almost continually fixed on the earth, and to abstain even from looking at innocent objects.

 

[EasterJoy]

Maybe so.

But is it a sin to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse? That’s what I want to discuss, and the main reason for which I started this thread. Archbishop Sheen’s motives may have been perfectly innocent, and that’s wonderful. God bless him. But I’m making a point to those who say it is perfectly acceptable to “admire” the beauty of one who is not your spouse. And I encourage everyone to read the writing of St Alphonsus which I posted.

It can be acceptable, but it can also be a near occasion of sin. It is not an automatic occasion of sin. Remember, too, that the desire to be pure can be a desire that can too easily lose track of its raison d’être.

Ask yourself this: In the course of history, has it only been the display of women’s bodies that has lead to women being treated as an object or a lesser sort of a human being? Has it not also been true that women have been treated as objects or lesser sorts of human beings as soon as men are given permission to treat us like some sort of a lust vortex?

The reason that it is sometimes not OK to look upon a woman is when she is looked on with less dignity than she deserves, or less respect for her marital status than that deserves, or out of a desire to use an image of God as a means of self-indulgence.

If you see someone cleaning your room at a hotel, and look at him or her as a draft animal or a machine instead of a human being, that is also wrong. It is what you tell yourself you are seeing the person where the sin comes in; what the mind and heart do, not the eye. Yet there are men who can go all day looking at every one of their fellow men as an idiot or a means for their own advancement, and not feel a twinge of conscience, but let them see some other man notice that a woman’s body is a beautiful thing, at all of a sudden it is the latter man who is the sinner?