Sexual attraction and disordered desires

[rlg94086]

This thread is started for agangbern, who was deathly afraid of going off-topic. At question is the difference between sexual attraction, lust (disordered desire) and same sex attraction (objectively disordered).

Here’s some Catechism to get us started…

Chastity and homosexuality
[2357](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2357.htm’) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
[2359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

On Lust…

**2351 ***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.

From reading the Catechism, it is clear to me that sexual desire is not the same as lust. Sexual desire directed toward the same sex is objectively disordered, but that is not the same as saying it is a sin in and of itself. Rather, it means that the desire has the wrong object (i.e. that is where the disorder is). On the other hand, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and a “grave depravity.”

Okay…have at it folks. It’s what everyone wants…another thread about homosexuality.

Seriously, I hope we can shed some light on the subject.

 

[Sure]

Perhaps a good analogy would be with food…

Lust is like a desire to consume far too many good things. In other words to consume too much of things that are good to consume. For example, a person who sits down and consumes 3extra large pizzas and makes himself sick.

Same sex attraction is like a desire to eat things that are not supposed to be consumed. For example, a person who sits down and carefully chews and consumes a pair of socks.

Or maybe not…it makes sense to me.

 

[rlg94086]

Perhaps a good analogy would be with food…

Lust is like a desire to consume far too many good things. In other words to consume too much of things that are good to consume. For example, a person who sits down and consumes 3extra large pizzas and makes himself sick.

Yep…lust is like gluttony.

Sure:

Same sex attraction is like a desire to eat things that are not supposed to be consumed. For example, a person who sits down and carefully chews and consumes a pair of socks.

Or maybe not…it makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me…it brings a new meaning to “eat my shorts!”

 

[agangbern]

This thread is started for agangbern, who was deathly afraid of going off-topic. At question is the difference between sexual attraction, lust (disordered desire) and same sex attraction (objectively disordered).

Originally Posted by rlg94086 View Post
Which comes first…desire or marriage?

I have allowed myself to be dragged off topic here many times. Better start another thread for this question.

I expected that the question would be as you asked above. Anyway, it is your thread. But right from the beginning of this thread you immediately demonstrated your dangerous attitude judging me as “deathly afraid”.

---

 

[brianwalden]

Just out of curiosity, where does masturbation fit into the food analogy?

 

[Sure]

Just out of curiosity, where does masturbation fit into the food analogy?

Masturbation would be using your mouth to clean the bathroom floor…it would probably work and get the floor somewhat clean, but it isn’t what your mouth was designed to do.

Ok, there I tried.

 

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by rlg94086 View Post
Which comes first…desire or marriage?

I have allowed myself to be dragged off topic here many times. Better start another thread for this question.

I expected that the question would be as you asked above. Anyway, it is your thread. But right from the beginning of this thread you immediately demonstrated your dangerous attitude judging me as “deathly afraid”.

---

I was joking, thus the smiley. Sorry if you took offense. If you don’t want to participate, then that’s okay too.

As far as the question, as I explained in the other thread, I made it broader. The broader question is more relevant than the “which came first” question.

 

[agangbern]

2351 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.

From reading the Catechism, it is clear to me that sexual desire is not the same as lust. Sexual desire directed toward the same sex is objectively disordered, but that is not the same as saying it is a sin in and of itself. Rather, it means that the desire has the wrong object (i.e. that is where the disorder is). On the other hand, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and a “grave depravity.”

In the Catechism, lust has two dimensions. One is “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”, and another is “Inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Let us focus on the first dimension: Disordered desire for sexual pleasure.Why is it called disordered desire? rlg94086 ventured to answer that it is because of the wrong object. Did the Catechism say that is the reason? No, it did not. Clearly therefore, the answer given is only as good as a guess that you and I could make too. But only up to that, a good guess. Nevertheless, a guess.
The catechism must have given a clue of why is it called “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”. Where is the clue? The clue is in the second sentence of 2351. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” What kind of sexual pleasure does the homosexual desire? Is that sexual pleasure related to procreative purpose? Definitely NOT. The sexual pleasure that the homosexual desires is in no way related to procreative purpose. If so, if it is not related to procreative purpose, what does 2351 say of it? 2351 says, it is morally disordered. Is something morally disordered not a sin? I believe it is a sin.
The catechism did not specify what is meant by “Homosexual tendencies” . Your guess of what it means would again be as good as anybody’s guess. I would venture to guess that homosexual tendencies do not include “disordered desire for sexual pleasure.” because the catechism said that homosexual tendencies are not intrinsically evil while the sexual pleasure desired by the homosexual is morally disordered.

 

[rlg94086]

In the Catechism, lust has two dimensions. One is “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”, and another is “Inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Let us focus on the first dimension: Disordered desire for sexual pleasure.Why is it called disordered desire? rlg94086 ventured to answer that it is because of the wrong object. Did the Catechism say that is the reason? No, it did not. Clearly therefore, the answer given is only as good as a guess that you and I could make too. But only up to that, a good guess. Nevertheless, a guess.

Actually, you are getting my answers confused. I never claimed that Lust’s disorder had anything to do with the object. The objective disorder is in same sex attraction.

The catechism must have given a clue of why is it called “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”. Where is the clue? The clue is in the second sentence of 2351. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

Yes, the disorder has to do with self-fulfillment, rather than self-giving.

What kind of sexual pleasure does the homosexual desire? Is that sexual pleasure related to procreative purpose? Definitely NOT. The sexual pleasure that the homosexual desires is in no way related to procreative purpose. If so, if it is not related to procreative purpose, what does 2351 say of it? 2351 says, it is morally disordered. Is something morally disordered not a sin? I believe it is a sin.

Yes, if a person with homosexual is seeking sexual pleasure through homosexual acts, then they are lusting.

The catechism did not specify what is meant by “Homosexual tendencies” . Your guess of what it means would again be as good as anybody’s guess. I would venture to guess that homosexual tendencies do not include “disordered desire for sexual pleasure.” because the catechism said that homosexual tendencies are not intrinsically evil while the sexual pleasure desired by the homosexual is morally disordered.

That’s correct. It is the sexual attraction they feel toward another human being, which is objectively disordered (i.e. the object of desire should be the opposite sex). However, that sexual attraction is not in and of itself a sin. It is a desire that comes naturally. If dwelled on an fantasized about, it is lust. If entertained, it is a homosexual act.

 

[brianwalden]

The catechism must have given a clue of why is it called “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”. Where is the clue? The clue is in the second sentence of 2351. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” What kind of sexual pleasure does the homosexual desire? Is that sexual pleasure related to procreative purpose? Definitely NOT. The sexual pleasure that the homosexual desires is in no way related to procreative purpose. If so, if it is not related to procreative purpose, what does 2351 say of it? 2351 says, it is morally disordered. Is something morally disordered not a sin? I believe it is a sin.

Desires don’t sin. People sin. When we describe a desire as sinful we really mean that it’s a desire which, if followed, leads people to commit sin - not that the desire is sin itself. The fact that a person experiences certain temptations is not sinful. Choosing to indulge them is sinful.

 

[brianwalden]

Masturbation would be using your mouth to clean the bathroom floor…it would probably work and get the floor somewhat clean, but it isn’t what your mouth was designed to do.

Ok, there I tried.

I’ve been thinking about it, and throwing masturbation into the mix may be stretching the metaphor beyond its limits. The best I can come up with is that masturbation would be like a person eating their hair and toenails while pretending that they’re eating spaghetti and meatballs.

 

[Sure]

I’ve been thinking about it, and throwing masturbation into the mix may be stretching the metaphor beyond its limits. The best I can come up with is that masturbation would be like a person eating their hair and toenails while pretending that they’re eating spaghetti and meatballs.

Yeah, it kind of ruins the metaphor. I think the first part of it works well, though.

 

[Riley259]

Perhaps a good analogy would be with food…

Lust is like a desire to consume far too many good things. In other words to consume too much of things that are good to consume. For example, a person who sits down and consumes 3extra large pizzas and makes himself sick.

Same sex attraction is like a desire to eat things that are not supposed to be consumed. For example, a person who sits down and carefully chews and consumes a pair of socks.

Or maybe not…it makes sense to me.

There are some people who actually do have a desire to consume inedible things - it’s called Pica.

 

[Sure]

There are some people who actually do have a desire to consume inedible things - it’s called Pica.

I didn’t know the name, but I had heard that it exists. I would say such a desire is disordered, wouldn’t you?

 

[agangbern]

agangbern: " What kind of sexual pleasure does the homosexual desire? Is that sexual pleasure related to procreative purpose? Definitely NOT. The sexual pleasure that the homosexual desires is in no way related to procreative purpose. If so, if it is not related to procreative purpose, what does 2351 say of it? 2351 says, it is morally disordered. Is something morally disordered not a sin? I believe it is a sin.
rlg94086: "Yes, if a person with homosexual is seeking sexual pleasure through homosexual acts, then they are lusting.

But the first dimension of the meaning of lust does not even mention of any overt act. It simply speaks of a desire for sexual pleasure, a sexual pleasure which is morally disordered for not in any way related to procreative purpose. In the eyes of God, sin is sin even if it is not shown by overt acts. That is revealed in Mathew 5:28. In the first dimension of the meaning of lust in catechism 2351, disordered desire for sexual pleasure is sin even if no overt act is committed.

It is a desire that comes naturally. If dwelled on an fantasized about, it is lust. If entertained, it is a homosexual act.

That is going beyond catechism because the catechism does not say “fantasized about” to make that desire lust. I just hope everyone accepts the catechism as it is.

 

[agangbern]

I didn’t know the name, but I had heard that it exists. I would say such a desire is disordered, wouldn’t you?

It may be disordered, but not in the concept of catechism 2351.

 

[agangbern]

rlg94086;:

agangbern: The catechism must have given a clue of why is it called “disordered desire for sexual pleasure”. Where is the clue? The clue is in the second sentence of 2351. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
rlg:Yes, the disorder has to do with self-fulfillment, rather than self-giving.

I agree with your observation, “self-fulfillment rather that self-giving” But that observation seems trying to evade if not replace the very words of catechism 2351: “isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.” That is one cause of misunderstanding.

 

[brianwalden]

I agree with your observation, “self-fulfillment rather that self-giving” But that observation seems trying to evade if not replace the very words of catechism 2351: “isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.” That is one cause of misunderstanding.

I don’t think rlg’s response is evading the catechism at all: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself.” Be careful not to take the catechism as gospel - it’s a summary of the magisterium, but not the magisterium itself. The Catechism is a wonderful reference tool, but the theology behind it’s teachings on sexuality is much deeper than what the catechism can cover in brief.

Think of it this way. A husband and wife can have unitive and procreative sex, but if the husband is lusting for another woman during it that is morally disordered. This is because, to use rlg’s words, the husband is seeking "“self-fulfillment rather that self-giving.”

 

[agangbern]

I don’t think rlg’s response is evading the catechism at all: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself.”

Why intentionally cut the sentence at that point? “Sought for itself” is explained in the continuation of the sentence.Trying to avoid or hide the explanation?

Be careful not to take the catechism as gospel - it’s a summary of the magisterium, but not the magisterium itself. The Catechism is a wonderful reference tool, but the theology behind it’s teachings on sexuality is much deeper than what the catechism can cover in brief.

What are you suggesting? If we should not take the catechism as it is, then better advise rgl to edit and delete them from the very first post of this thread. Let us then talk without catechism.

Think of it this way. A husband and wife can have unitive and procreative sex, but if the husband is lusting for another woman during it that is morally disordered. This is because, to use rlg’s words, the husband is seeking "“self-fulfillment rather that self-giving.”

You have just given another different kind of moral disorder. The disorder I was talking about is the desire for sexual pleasure which, being isolated from procreative purpose is, in the words of catechism 2351, morally disordered. Catechism 2351 should be followed as it is.

 

[agangbern]

Desires don’t sin. People sin.

Whom are you debating with about those facts? Is there anyone here who objects to that?