Priests are allowed to "look at the menu"?

[promethius]

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.

Well, as the Catechism states: “*Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”

So the point to draw the line with lust is the moment we think about a person as a means to cause pleasure. Human dignity and being is not a means to an end, but rather the end in and of itself. Furthermore, the means in which sexuality is to be expressed include the requirement of marraige, though lust can involve both those who are married and single.

As to looking down shirts, that’s a “depends” situation. If you’re a doctor, you might be perfectly within your medically defined practice to look at topless women. In this case you would be right because you would (hopefully) not be lusting, not be violating privacy (an assault on human dignity), and not be causing scandal.

 

[Rocks_91]

Well, as the Catechism states: “*Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”

So the point to draw the line with lust is the moment we think about a person as a means to cause pleasure.

Ok, so looking at a woman who is not your spouse to admire her beauty…It would be neither procreative nor unitive, but solely for the enjoyment you get out of it. Wouldn’t that fall under the Catechism’s definition of lust? How then, can anyone say that deliberately looking at a woman to admire her beauty is not wrong?

 

[Bookcat]

Ok, so looking at a woman who is not your spouse to admire her beauty…It would be neither procreative nor unitive, but solely for the enjoyment you get out of it. Wouldn’t that fall under the Catechism’s definition of lust? How then, can anyone say that deliberately looking at a woman to admire her beauty is not wrong?

Yes there can be ways of looking at a woman which are lustful (or otherwise disordered).

But not all admiring of beauty is lustful or in any way disordered.

Not all delight in seeing the beauty of a woman is lust. It is need not involve any “desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.”

One needs of course modesty and chastity and prudence…awareness of concupscience etc and a reasonable custody of the eyes. (see my posts above).

 

[DeoJuventute]

Well, as the Catechism states: “*Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”

So the point to draw the line with lust is the moment we think about a person as a means to cause pleasure. Human dignity and being is not a means to an end, but rather the end in and of itself. Furthermore, the means in which sexuality is to be expressed include the requirement of marraige, though lust can involve both those who are married and single.

As to looking down shirts, that’s a “depends” situation. If you’re a doctor, you might be perfectly within your medically defined practice to look at topless women. In this case you would be right because you would (hopefully) not be lusting, not be violating privacy (an assault on human dignity), and not be causing scandal.

There are very, very few men out there for whom looking at a very attractive woman does not cause pleasure. And that’s the whole point I’m making: if the problem is taking pleasure in a woman’s beauty, then that basically rules out ever looking at an attractive woman for the sake of “admiring beauty.” Because you really can’t admire a gorgeous woman’s beauty without taking pleasure in it.

And as to looking down shirts, the problem remains: if it’s not okay to look down shirts, why is it okay to “admire the beauty” of a girl with a tight shirt that only barely covers what you’re not supposed to be looking at? Do you see my point? I’m not trying to be crass or irreverent, but I think this point is a crucial one. The only “line” that’s ever been explained to me is that it’s not okay to fantasize about doing improper things, or want to do those things, to a girl (or guy). But if that’s the “line,” then that leaves things like looking down shirts with a green light. And I hardly believe that it’s a good thing to do. Or taking one step back, what about checking out girls on the beach or at the pool? I can do that without actually losing my wits or thinking about having sex, but I definitely take a lot of pleasure from it. Yet no standard that’s been mentioned here really helps with situations like that.

 

[Bookcat]

There are very, very few men out there for whom looking at a very attractive woman does not cause pleasure. And that’s the whole point I’m making: if the problem is taking pleasure in a woman’s beauty, then that basically rules out ever looking at an attractive woman for the sake of “admiring beauty.” Because you really can’t admire a gorgeous woman’s beauty without taking pleasure in it.

And as to looking down shirts, the problem remains: if it’s not okay to look down shirts, why is it okay to “admire the beauty” of a girl with a tight shirt that only barely covers what you’re not supposed to be looking at? Do you see my point? I’m not trying to be crass or irreverent, but I think this point is a crucial one. The only “line” that’s ever been explained to me is that it’s not okay to fantasize about doing improper things, or want to do those things, to a girl (or guy). But if that’s the “line,” then that leaves things like looking down shirts with a green light. And I hardly believe that it’s a good thing to do. Or taking one step back, what about checking out girls on the beach or at the pool? I can do that without actually losing my wits or thinking about having sex, but I definitely take a lot of pleasure from it. Yet no standard that’s been mentioned here really helps with situations like that.

Lust does not require one to think or fantasize.

One can look lustfully without such.

And the line is not just about lust or looking lustfully. We need to only look at others with modest looks and of course take reasonable care in avoiding those who are rather immodestly dressed …and we need a reasonable custody of the eyes in life. Especially when one is around those who are not modest or other like situations.

There is no green light to go staring at those who are immodestly dressed. Or looking down shirts. Such is not in keeping with the virtues under discussion.

But not all admiring of beauty is lustful or in any way disordered.

Not all delight in seeing the beauty of a woman is lust. It is need not involve any “desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.”

One needs of course modesty and chastity and prudence…awareness of concupscience, near occasions, know oneself…etc and a reasonable custody of the eyes.

 

[tafan]

I don’t understand why the idea of lust is difficult for people to understand. Admiring beauty is a good thing, and don;t we all know in our hearts when it is not admiring beauty and it becomes lustful. If nothing else, there seems to be the pragmatic way of telling; if you are admiring a woman from the neck up, it is likely ok; anything below the neck, it is probably sinful. That may be too simplistic, but if it is that diffucult for people to decide, maybe a simply rule is a good place to start. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Humupower]

I believe this is a joke.
A friend of mine who is a sister of Charity once said “I’m celibate, not dead”.
I also know a young man who was considering priesthood. He asked a priest he respected when he would be able to stop noticing/feeling physically attracted toward women. The priest told him “about 2 weeks after your funeral”. I think it is natural to turn to humor in light of something that we know is a difficult sacrifice, and I don’t think it is unholy to make this kind of joke when done in a good spirited way. The fact that you can joke about it can make it easier to engage people outside the faith, who are going to see it as weird.

Feeling sexual attraction toward someone is not sinful. Lusting after someone is.

 

[promethius]

Ok, so looking at a woman who is not your spouse to admire her beauty…It would be neither procreative nor unitive, but solely for the enjoyment you get out of it. Wouldn’t that fall under the Catechism’s definition of lust? How then, can anyone say that deliberately looking at a woman to admire her beauty is not wrong?

enjoyment =/= innordinate enjoyment of sexual enjoyment

hence why the catechism uses the clarifyings word in this case.

 

[EasterJoy]

…I also know a young man who was considering priesthood. He asked a priest he respected when he would be able to stop noticing/feeling physically attracted toward women. The priest told him “about 2 weeks after your funeral”. I think it is natural to turn to humor in light of something that we know is a difficult sacrifice, and I don’t think it is unholy to make this kind of joke when done in a good spirited way. The fact that you can joke about it can make it easier to engage people outside the faith, who are going to see it as weird.

Feeling sexual attraction toward someone is not sinful. Lusting after someone is.

Yes. You don’t take it too seriously; it is a joke. I’ve heard the “menu” joke made by married men who dare to look at women not their wives, as well. They aren’t defending true ogling.

Having said that, it is a good idea to realize that if you extending the menu analogy too far, it gets into territory that is not appropriate for a Christian man, celibate or not, and not something the “menu items” can be expected to find either flattering or humorous!

 

[DeoJuventute]

enjoyment =/= innordinate enjoyment of sexual enjoyment

hence why the catechism uses the clarifyings word in this case.

So when does that enjoyment become inordinate? That really is the question, isn’t it?

 

[Bookcat]

So when does that enjoyment become inordinate? That really is the question, isn’t it?

ALL seeking or consenting to sexual pleasure outside of marriage…is for one thing inordinate. Such is lust.

Such is only for marriage.

(but remember too things can “happen” to one …as temptations…not one does not automatically sin…and one needs to distinguish (though there are certain things one avoids). Attraction is one thing…lust is another)

See also my last post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8312840&postcount=105

 

[Rocks_91]

Well, it does say that it is inordinate when isolated from it’s procreative and unitive aspects. So that would mean any deliberate enjoyment outside marriage would be lust.

Temptation and attraction are involuntary, and a sin if you give in to them. Lust if it is purely sexual attraction. Romantic attraction, on the other hand, which may not be a sin, by the way, consists not in the delight of physical appearance, but in the will to share your life with a person.

Anyway, that’s the meaning I gather from all this. And to deliberately look at a woman who is not your spouse, not an accidental falling of the eyes, but a deliberate look, in order to admire her beauty would be sinful, it seems.

 

[Bookcat]

Temptation and attraction are involuntary, and a sin if you give in to them. Lust if it is purely sexual attraction. Romantic attraction, on the other hand, which may not be a sin, by the way, consists not in the delight of physical appearance, but in the will to share your life with a person.

Anyway, that’s the meaning I gather from all this. And to deliberately look at a woman who is not your spouse, not an accidental falling of the eyes, but a deliberate look, in order to admire her beauty would be sinful, it seems.

Yes there can be sinful looks…and dangerous ones etc…

But:

Sexual attraction does not = per se lust.

Lust is not purely sexual attraction.

It is not a sin per se to be sexually attracted to someone.

And to deliberately look at a woman who is not your spouse is not per se necessarily any sin. It depends on the kind of look etc…(see my posts above)…one need take care and have the reasonable custody of the eyes etc.

(Also Romantic attraction does not need the “will to share your life with a person”. Nor would the will to share your life with a person need romantic attraction…I would add.)

See my posts above.

 

[promethius]

Well, it does say that it is inordinate when isolated from it’s procreative and unitive aspects. So that would mean any deliberate ***[sexual] ***enjoyment outside marriage would be lust.

(my addition)

The catechism is worded exactly how it is for a reason. Knocking out words to change the meaning is an incorrect way to approach the catechism. Your statement is only correct when it contains the correct phrases to align with catholic teaching.

 

[Rocks_91]

(my addition)

The catechism is worded exactly how it is for a reason. Knocking out words to change the meaning is an incorrect way to approach the catechism. Your statement is only correct when it contains the correct phrases to align with catholic teaching.

Even with the word you added, the meaning remains the same. Taking delight in someone’s physical appearance is sexual, if nothing. What else would your motivation be in admiring a woman’s beauty? And the argument that finding a cat or your sister cute is the same thing is just wrong. They are different things. Physical attraction to the opposite sex is driven by concupiscence.

 

[Bookcat]

Even with the word you added, the meaning remains the same.

This will be helpful:

Jimmy Akin --senior Apologist of Catholic Answers:

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

 

[Bookcat]

Physical attraction to the opposite sex is driven by concupiscence.

This will be helpful:

Jimmy Akin --senior Apologist of Catholic Answers:

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

(see also: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289565&postcount=84)

 

[promethius]

Even with the word you added, the meaning remains the same. Taking delight in someone’s physical appearance is sexual, if nothing. What else would your motivation be in admiring a woman’s beauty? And the argument that finding a cat or your sister cute is the same thing is just wrong. They are different things.

So let’s see… what if a straight woman looks at another woman and says “wow, you’re really pretty”? Is that sin?

What if a homosexual male looks at a woman and says “Wow, you’re really pretty”? Is that sin?

So why is objective morality somehow different for a straight male? A straight male is not allowed to do the same objective action where no lust is involved?

Or is it your argument that straight men are incapable of looking at a woman without lust? If so, there’s a contradiction because I couldn’t even look at my sister without being in sin, right? And, like the massage thread, I should point out that interpreting one’s own conscupience as applying to all is an incorrect perception.

You teach a doctrine of subjective morality which is contrary to church teaching, my friend! There is nothing to say that a man appreciating a woman’s beauty in the same way a straight woman appreciates that beauty is wrong.

Physical attraction to the opposite sex is driven by concupiscence.

You REALLY need to read Humanae Vitae if you actually believe that…

 

[ciero]

I’m female and have been married for 37 years but I’m neither dead nor blind so I can appreciate the sight of a good looking man. That doesn’t mean I have any desire to bed him or treat him like a piece of meat but to say I don’t notice would be a blatant lie. I can also appreciate the beauty of other women.

I don’t imagine my husband is any different, although his definition of ‘good looking man’ might differ from mine, just like my definition of ‘beautiful woman’ probably differs from his.

Very well said! After reading all the self-righteous posts above it was good to see someone who has her head screwed on straight!

 

[bobballen_18]

Reading this thread almost makes me furious. OK, not exactly. But it’s basically pointless to keep on arguing. Rock_91 seems to want to imply that basically every time a man looks at a woman (that is not his wife) he sins - let him think that if he wants, especially if he refuses to want to believe otherwise. Every time you give him a quote or something that correctly says that it IS in fact ok, he is just going to find something “wrong” with it. He is being way too literal, or something - I don’t even know.

It’s silly to say that it is wrong or especially that the bishop was wrong. As plenty of people have said, it CAN be wrong, but it does not have to be wrong. Nothing anyone says is going to change anything - well, at least for me! Women can be externally (and of course internally, but that’s not what’s in question) beautiful and I thank God for that!