Priests are allowed to "look at the menu"?

[Bookcat]

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.

There can be a reasonable ‘admiring’ of the beauty of a person who is not your spouse. Even if one is married. Beauty is a great gift.

A good example is seeing a beautiful face stand out in a crowd.

Of course can also a sinful looking…

and there can be a real danger… and even a near occasion of sin…particularly with certain recent trends in immodesty (especially one need be aware of concupscience … many underestimate such)

and a need for a reasonable custody of the eyes (custodia occulorum)…and of course custody of the heart.

---

(this can help from CA’s Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html)

 

[Bookcat]

“Saint Thomas, who was as simple as he was wise, defined the beautiful as that which, being seen, pleases: id quod visum placet. These four words say all that is necessary: a vision, that is to say, an intuitive knowledge, and a delight. The beautiful is what gives delight – not just any delight, but delight in knowing; not the delight peculiar to the act of knowing, but a delight which superabounds and overflows from this act because of the object known. If a thing exalts and delights the soul by the very fact that it is given to the soul’s intuition, it is good to apprehend, it is beautiful.”

~ Jacques Maritain

www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/art5.htm

 

[promethius]

Beauty is a great gift.

A good example is seeing a beautiful face stand out in a crowd.

There can also a sinful looking…

I think the problem here is that he’s applying a parable by St Francis which was delivered ONLY to 12 monks and intended as a personal practice for his direct followers as universal teaching for all.

What he needs to do is read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” and “Humanae Vitae” to understand that the church exalts the body when used and considered within the proper context. Unfortunately, the writings are long and too nuanced for me to quote here. The church’s 2000 year teaching of the theology of the body cannot be summed up in a few sentences or a pithy parable.

 

[Bookcat]

There can be a reasonable ‘admiring’ of the beauty of a person who is not your spouse. Even if one is married. Beauty is a great gift.

A good example is seeing a beautiful face stand out in a crowd.

Of course can also a sinful looking…

and there can be a real danger… and even a near occasion of sin…particularly with certain recent trends in immodesty (especially one need be aware of concupscience … many underestimate such)

and a need for a reasonable custody of the eyes (custodia occulorum)…and of course custody of the heart.

---

(this can help from CA’s Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html)

“Saint Thomas, who was as simple as he was wise, defined the beautiful as that which, being seen, pleases: id quod visum placet. These four words say all that is necessary: a vision, that is to say, an intuitive knowledge, and a delight. The beautiful is what gives delight – not just any delight, but delight in knowing; not the delight peculiar to the act of knowing, but a delight which superabounds and overflows from this act because of the object known. If a thing exalts and delights the soul by the very fact that it is given to the soul’s intuition, it is good to apprehend, it is beautiful.”

~ Jacques Maritain

www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/art5.htm

Of course noticing the beauty of a woman (or man…for a woman…but often less problematic…) …is certainly different than say seeing a beautiful scene in nature or art…both due to it being a person…and due to the reality of concupscience (as well as any past sins).

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Well, and I think the original point is, should we admire persons of the opposite sex in terms of “items on a menu” (breasts, thighs, buttocks, etc.)

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, and I think the original point is, should we admire persons of the opposite sex in terms of “items on a menu” (breasts, thighs, buttocks, etc.)

I think it could be taken that way, hence the scandal. I doubt it was meant that way, but rather like how you could go through a museum or read a biography and get pleasure from life stories you can’t have and wouldn’t think appropriate for you if you could have them.

If someone reads biographies for personal inspiration, one might take scandal to see someone else reading the biography of a notorious person. Yet there are lessons a person might learn by doing that, if they read biographies without imitation ever crossing their mind.

The original analogy is not good for the reason you cite, but I suspect that those particular drawbacks never crossed the bishop’s mind, which is why he used it. He only meant to say that looking at something that others might look at with procurement in mind does not prove that everyone who looks desires to procure. Some do that and only that: look.

 

[Rocks_91]

I think the problem here is that he’s applying a parable by St Francis which was delivered ONLY to 12 monks and intended as a personal practice for his direct followers as universal teaching for all.

What he needs to do is read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” and “Humanae Vitae” to understand that the church exalts the body when used and considered within the proper context. Unfortunately, the writings are long and too nuanced for me to quote here. The church’s 2000 year teaching of the theology of the body cannot be summed up in a few sentences or a pithy parable.

The moral teaching in that parable of St Francis is applicable to all. St Francis wasn’t teaching them a personal devotion, but explaining the morality of true purity. Are you suggesting that morality is somehow different for the saints than for us? What happened to “Be ye perfect and holy as the Father in heaven is perfect and holy”?? And I didn’t just give you a pithy parable but also the writings of St Alphonsus, a great moral theologian and his opinion and that of other saints on whether it is ok to deliberately fix your eyes/appreciate the beauty of one who is not your spouse. And you can give me nothing in return to support your point of view.

“What he needs to do is read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” and “Humanae Vitae” to understand that the church exalts the body when used and considered within the proper context”

And the proper context in which it is acceptable is marriage and spousal love.

 

[Rocks_91]

"If thine right eye causeth thee to sin, pluck it out and throw it away."

Why did Jesus use such seemingly harsh words? Obviously, Jesus didn’t want us to literally gouge our eyes out, but I beg you to interpret that verse in the light of St Alphonsus’ writing on the importance of spiritual blindness and the need to avert your eyes. Of course, if you claim to have the grace of sinlessness, then that verse doesn’t apply to you. But we do sin, and it is a sin by the very fact that you are exposing yourself to the danger of sin.

As St Gregory says, "It is not lawful to behold what it is not lawful to covet."

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

"If thine right eye causeth thee to sin, pluck it out and throw it away."

Why did Jesus use such seemingly harsh words? Obviously, Jesus didn’t want us to literally gouge our eyes out, but I beg you to interpret that verse in the light of St Alphonsus’ writing on the importance of spiritual blindness and the need to avert your eyes. Of course, if you claim to have the grace of sinlessness, then that verse doesn’t apply to you. But we do sin, and it is a sin by the very fact that you are exposing yourself to the danger of sin.

As St Gregory says, "It is not lawful to behold what it is not lawful to covet."

In that case one shouldn’t look at the ground because you might covet someone else’s land

 

[Bookcat]

"If thine right eye causeth thee to sin, pluck it out and throw it away."

Why did Jesus use such seemingly harsh words? Obviously, Jesus didn’t want us to literally gouge our eyes out, but I beg you to interpret that verse in the light of St Alphonsus’ writing on the importance of spiritual blindness and the need to avert your eyes. Of course, if you claim to have the grace of sinlessness, then that verse doesn’t apply to you. But we do sin, and it is a sin by the very fact that you are exposing yourself to the danger of sin.

]

They are a semitic way of teaching.

YES we need to avoid the near occasion of sin. Yes it one can sin by exposing oneself to such without good reason etc.

Would looking at a particular woman lead one to sin??? Yes by all means do not look! Rather “pluck out your eye” in that case.

But lets look at the verse that specifically speaks of looking at a woman.

He is speaking there regarding looking in order to lust.

Jesus did not say “He who looks at a woman to admire the beauty of he face has already committed adultery in his heart”.

He speaks of looking in order to lust.

Yes we should take reasonable care…yes we need to have a good custody of they eyes…yes we should not “covet” either.

But such does not mean say one can never admire beauty.

Again see these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289465&postcount=81

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289474&postcount=82

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289565&postcount=84

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

From a non-Native English Speaker what I would say: Eating, imagetically, is connected to sex, or vice-versa would be better told. But it is a sexual explicit metaphor that comes down to the sexual act.

Knowing nothing about the actual use, thanks for the explanation (!!!), I would say, from an external point of view, and looking at the image (I like to study them) that is a dirty image. As you said, it contemplates the idea of buying but also the idea of eating which has got strong sexual connections. I think there were other images more worthy of a bishop: flowers, creation of God, air hostess … flying … angels… and so on. she would be pleased.

But, bishops are men, no? They have sexual desires, no? They have sexual appetites (appetites…eating), no? They want to have sexual relations, no? They make mistakes, no? they sin like everybody else, no?

So, let’s forgive the bishop, for God has already forgiven him. I am sure he already repented but in some cases the problem is if no one says: “Hey, eminence, that was an unfortunate metaphor” and he does not realize (for in his family he was educated that way !) that he got it wrong. And goes on doing the same for no one dares to contradict the bishop.

 

[cardonius]

This joke sounded so dirty, and the priest in the story sounded like a big pervert.

But when you hear the joke coming from Bishop Sheen, it changes it. It instantly becomes a cute joke from a kind, holy man. There’s nothing perverted about it.

It kind of reminds me of an event I saw on TV recently. Former President George H.W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton were both presenting at this event. While Bush was speaking, he told the story when he accidentally came into close contact with a very ugly female pro-choice protester who was waving a sign that said “Stay out of my womb!” Bush said to the lady “No problem, lady!”
When Bill Clinton got up to speak he said, “Wow, can you imagine if I had something like that? They’d be all over me for it. Some guys got it, some guys don’t.”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

This joke sounded so dirty, and the priest in the story sounded like a big pervert.

But when you hear the joke coming from Bishop Sheen, it changes it. It instantly becomes a cute joke from a kind, holy man. There’s nothing perverted about it.

It kind of reminds me of an event I saw on TV recently. Former President George H.W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton were both presenting at this event. While Bush was speaking, he told the story when he accidentally came into close contact with a very ugly female pro-choice protester who was waving a sign that said “Stay out of my womb!” Bush said to the lady “No problem, lady!”
When Bill Clinton got up to speak he said, “Wow, can you imagine if I had something like that? They’d be all over me for it. Some guys got it, some guys don’t.”

Once you read the whole thing it becomes clear that it isn’t perverted.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I read a story a while ago about a famous bishop “acknowledging” an attractive air-hostess in a flight and telling her that priests are “allowed to look at the menu, just not order anything”. (Maybe someone can provide the exact story.) I was saddened to read that a priest, who is supposed to be celibate and everyone’s “spiritual father”, thinks that it is ok to check out a woman. Doesn’t seem very holy to me. I would like to hear your opinions.

Do you know what?
I cannot do that for I am not a Native English Speaker.
I consider any married man or engaged man or pries/bishop/consecrated looking at other women the situation is the same.
So “look at the menu” is not OK.
I would love to see someone make a list of 10 sentences directed to the opposite sex and know what is the opinion of CAF members, man (on one viewpoint), women (on the other viewpoint) about those 10 sentences, if they were convenient or not. I said 10 not to say 100 it would be unbearable.

This is an area where each one of us keeps the thoughts to himself and no one is too comfortable sharing them that is why I found this thread interesting and the posts good for me, I learnt a lot.

 

[razredge]

Pfaffenhoffen, I think it is utterly despicable for any man to “check out” a woman who is not his wife. Sexuality and beauty were created for marriage. If she’s not your wife, then you should never look at her in a way that you wouldn’t if it was your own sister. I know that we all suffer from concupiscence but to wilfully look at a woman in that manner is lust and goes against the ninth commandment which I believe includes any woman you are not married to.

I think this priest is setting a bad example.

Haven’t you heard the story of St Nonnus & St Pelagia
loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2009/06/saint-nonnus-and-saint-pelagia.html

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

From a non-Native English Speaker what I would say: Eating, imagetically, is connected to sex, or vice-versa would be better told. But it is a sexual explicit metaphor that comes down to the sexual act.

Knowing nothing about the actual use, thanks for the explanation (!!!), I would say, from an external point of view, and looking at the image (I like to study them) that is a dirty image. As you said, it contemplates the idea of buying but also the idea of eating which has got strong sexual connections. I think there were other images more worthy of a bishop: flowers, creation of God, air hostess … flying … angels… and so on. she would be pleased.

But, bishops are men, no? They have sexual desires, no? They have sexual appetites (appetites…eating), no? They want to have sexual relations, no? They make mistakes, no? they sin like everybody else, no?

So, let’s forgive the bishop, for God has already forgiven him. I am sure he already repented but in some cases the problem is if no one says: “Hey, eminence, that was an unfortunate metaphor” and he does not realize (for in his family he was educated that way !) that he got it wrong. And goes on doing the same for no one dares to contradict the bishop.

I’m not talking about forgiving him or not forgiving him. I think the only reason the metaphor was used as all was that it was not conceived in the mindset of the woman being an object of sin, but because she is being seen as a person whose many good points might legitimately be admired by anyone, not just her husband, and yes, even by a bishop.

I’m only talking about whether or not the metaphor is well-advised because the innocence of the mindset cannot be assumed. If the assumption is “They want to have sexual relations, no? They make mistakes, no? they sin like everybody else, no?”…that is a very good reason for those who may not eat to stay out of restaurants. If you have a restricted diet, there are menus you would do well not to scan! It is the unfortunate truth that this assumption might be incorrectly made with respect to every man not married to this woman or that which makes the metaphor problematic.

As for whether anyone in the Church dares contradict the bishop, I can hear our own Archbishop’s reaction to that: Don’t I Wish! If he made a comment like the one being discussed here in public, the corrections coming from the outraged–Catholic, non-Catholic, and especially “this-blatant-sexism-is-why-I-left-the-Church!” Catholic!–would probably burn up the opinion pages of The Oregonian.

 

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289565&postcount=84

 

[DeoJuventute]

I’ve always been confused about this topic. What exactly, in clear terms, is lusting? And how does it differ from mere appreciation of beauty?

The problem is that appreciating a sunset is a very different thing from appreciating a woman’s beauty. When I see a gorgeous sunset I see a gorgeous sunset, maybe smile, and get on with things. But seeing a gorgeous woman is a totally different experience, because it integrates aesthetic, physiological, and moral aspects. Appreciating beauty as a merely aesthic event is one thing, but is it really the same thing when you’re admiring a beautiful woman?

Where is the line drawn? Is it at the point at which you start fantasizing about sexual relations? Because I can look down a girl’s shirt–“admiringly”–and still resist any thought about having sex with her. But isn’t that the sort of indecent thing that the 6th and 9th Commandments explicitly prohibit? And if you draw the line at, say, looking down shirts, then what about looking at women with tight clothing that cover, but only barely, the sorts of things that you say you shouldn’t be looking at?

What about second looks? What about third looks?

The problem, as I see it, and as I’ve experienced it, is that there is really no real line between “admiring beauty” and actually lusting. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeing a cute girl and thinking, wow, she is cute. But it just feels like anything beyond that is morally problematic. I don’t know how seriously problematic, but somewhat sinful nonetheless.

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8R.HTM

There can be a reasonable ‘admiring’ of the beauty of a person who is not your spouse. Even if one is married. Beauty is a great gift.

A good example is seeing a beautiful face stand out in a crowd.

Of course can also a sinful looking…

and there can be a real danger… and even a near occasion of sin…particularly with certain recent trends in immodesty (especially one need be aware of *concupscience *… many underestimate such)

and a need for a reasonable custody of the eyes (custodia occulorum)…and of course custody of the heart.

 

[roveau]

To give the benefit of doubt. I would think this would be a situation where he could appreciate the beauty of one of God’s creations without lustful thoughts. And the comment about looking at the menu was just light-hearted humour.

However any human is susceptible to lustful thoughts. The problem comes when you realize where your thoughts are going and you do not correct the them. And of course “ordering from the menu” would be acting on those thoughts. Priests are not perfect, if they were they would not need to go to confession. Yes, priests are held to a higher standard, but they are still imperfect and sinful human beings. Even pope John Paul II went to weekly confession.

Father John Riccardo, host of the radio show ‘Christ is the Answer’, said that one time a priest during confession said that he had never lusted. Father John’s response was “are you dead?”

The best we (meaning every human on earth) can do is properly handle our situation and do our best to avoid the temptation.

To add to the above. We should praise God for His creation when we see beauty in a woman or man.

It should be noted that the Vatican and the churches are full of depictions of very beautiful humans (some perhaps too beautiful).