Sexual sin - where is the line?

[the-3rd-parent]

why is seeking self gratification automatically a sin? esp if that gratification is got from thougts about giving, making love etc?

From the CCC:
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.

As I already said, even if you are fantasizing about giving yourself to another person, the primary motivation to do this is out of lust, for your own self gratification. You aren’t actually particpating in an act that is procreative and unitive, but rather experiencing only the sexual pleasure that comes from imagining sexual behavior.

If I remember a funny conversation with my wife for my own amusement does that mean I am using her as a means to an end?

Since when is having a funny conversation with your wife a sacramental act? Since when is it a symbol of your spiritual and emotional unity? Since when is it an image of the Holy Trinity? Since when is the pleasure of remembering a funny conversation anywhere similar to engaging in lustful thoughts?

.perhaps we should’s imagine a conversation with husband/wife, cause that would be taking pleasure in their imagined responses, controlling their image in our minds. There’s no end to this type of ‘standard’.

Actually, some of the best spiritual advice I was given was to not fantasize, especially when it involves romance, about things that have not happened. This is especially helpful in dating. A lot of times, when we date someone, we’re so eager to spend more time with them that we spend fictional time with them in our minds. We often spend more time with our fictitious version of the person we are infatuated with than with the actual person and our minds have difficulty telling the difference. That’s why dating someone you’ve been crushing over for months rarely works, because we’ve fallen for this ideal of who we want them to be instead of actually spending the time getting to know them and falling for who they are.

I wouldn’t say it is a sin to think about such fictitious things that aren’t sexual in nature, but I do think it is good practice to avoid it. The rule is, if you’re going to think about the person, think about what has already happened. It’ll help you remember conversations better and thus help you to remember things about the person you may otherwise forget. It focuses you on actually falling in love with that particular person rather than falling “in love” with the image you have established of that person. To love you have to know that person. Fantasies are motivated only by our own self love. If I were married, why should I waste my time daydreaming about sex? If I can’t have sex at the time, than I should seek ways to actually express my love to that person at that moment. Laying around on bed or on a couch or in the car dreaming about being with that person does not send my heart to my partner. It doesn’t make him anymore capable of receiving my life, even if I’m rationalizing it because “Hey I’m thinking about how I can make the experience better for him.” Since when is the imaginary version of your spouse a reliable source?

 

[Black_Jaque]

I get your point but if Jesus was physically standing in the room where I could see him I would not have sexual relations with my hubby and that’s not sinful.

Hmmmm. I don’t know. I understand what you are saying on one level. But on another level without getting too kinky, we are supposed to invite Jesus into the bedroom.

How different do you really think it is - he sees us anyway? Yet it is different. I better quit the mental gymnastics before I pull something.

 

[maryj]

LittleDeb:

Charting is information. I charted before I was married to help improve my health. Charting is not thinking about the marital act every day. NFP is about being aware of your own body and fertility and how your sexual drives fit into God’s plan for children. Breast-feeding is also part of NFP.

[End of involvement.]

Yup your correct charting is information. And what would that information be used for? why is it I’m paying attention to this information on these charts? If I wasn’t interested in the “Marital Act” why would I be charting, wouldn’t I just be abstaining? This discussion would be for a Totally different thread sorry for taking this one off course. I’ve said my thoughts now I’m out.

 

[TZiggy]

The bar is very high and I don’t believe it is something we should lower. Rather we need to accept with humility that we all suffer from the vice of lust and that we all need redemption. I wouldn’t say that experiencing lustful feelings during the sexual act with your spouse is not a mortal sin. One has to grow in the virtue of chastity a lot to do that, but we must encourage that virtue to grow. It is true that we are often protected from seeing all our sins because chances are if we did, we’d all fall into despair over them. A person who struggles with mortal sins, needs to deal with their mortal sins, but once they reach the place where confession is something where mortal sins are a rarity, they need to focus on the venial sins and on imperfections.

3rd Parent: Again, philisophically, I understand the point you try to make. You also have great advice about fantasizing. Here’s where we part ways: Your dissertation regarding “marital lust”, chastity, and growing in virtue seems to lack experience, and in lacking that experience, it lacks a certain charity. Let me draw a paralell to make my point. In a seperate post a man told of his wifes latest pregnancy and a condition that made it life threatening to ever get pregnant again. He asked for advice. Answers I saw on that thread were what I envisioned the Pharisies doing; quoting scripture and verse, citing from the catechism and dooming him to to stringent guide lines as interpreted by the advice givers. I’ve lived thru that exact same scenario. My wife and I abstained for two years while we prayed and tried to understand God’s will for us (let me tell you about marital chastity!). While I fundamentally agreed with many of the “hard line” posters, their advice lacked an understanding and love needed to help this man understand he was embarking on a VERY spiritual journey. God was giving him a gift. Instead, he got rules and regulations from people well versed in rules and regulations. Are you getting my drift?

Now go read the OP’s question and tell me if your advice would help him enter into the fullness of our beloved churches teaching, or possibly push him away.

We don’t need to lower our standards, we need to meet people where they are, and walk with them to their destination.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Maybe I am just motivated out of pride to respond again, but I was not responding to the OP when I began to address lust in marriage. And I don’t believe in the attitude that we should censor out truths about our faiths because it might frighten and dissuade people who are just beginning or have a way to go before they’d be spiritually able to enter into that battle.

Because the good news and the truth doesn’t come through censoring the truth nor does it help that person’s spiritual journey. That’s like a priest whose afraid of losing parishioners if he talks about contraceptives in his homely.

If you look at any of the hard core devotionals, such as the concecration to Jesus through Mary, they are full of speaking about a humility which borders on sounding like self hatred. Even when you read these things, your heart may not be ready to grasp them, but if you are seeking the truth, I don’t believe that it’ll dissuade you from actually following. Your own actions may take time to embrace the truth, but as you grow in your faith there’s also that affirmation when you reach a certain penicle of “I had been being told this so many years and had been rejecting it.” It kind of reaffirms our faith in the Church to discover the truth that we had been misunderstanding and rejecting for years.

I don’t think that Christ ever softened his message to individuals, and I think the criticisms of certain pharisees had more to do with the fact that they wanted to exclude individuals who were converting to the faith. It was becoming a problem for them and Christ was very strong with his words to them as he was with everyone.

 

[TZiggy]

I think the criticisms of certain pharisees had more to do with the fact that they wanted to exclude individuals who were converting to the faith.

Or did Christ chastise the pharisees because they enjoyed foisting heavy burdens on others while not lifting a finger to help them shoulder their load?

Because the good news and the truth doesn’t come through censoring the truth nor does it help that person’s spiritual journey. That’s like a priest whose afraid of losing parishioners if he talks about contraceptives in his homely.

I’m all for fire and brimstone from the pulpit. Tell it like it is, AND GIVE THEM THE TOOLS TO LIVE THE MESSAGE!!!

My response to you was and is: There is a difference between telling someone “the rules”, and helping them understand how to live our churches teachings. Jesus didn’t just preach the word, he lived it. In doing so, he met us sinners where we live. He walked us along the path to salvation. Hard teachings without empathy, are empty and breed despair.

You seem intelligent. My message to you in essence is to be careful not to teach algebra to someone still learning thier multiplication tables. They’ll get frustrated and quit.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

The tools to live the message are the sacraments and cultivating chastity in your heart through obeying the Church’s teachings to the best of your ability and making frequent confession. I really don’t see how I’m denying them that or portraying it as “I’m condemning you.”

I think we agree, I just think that you perceived what I said as being harsher than I see it. Because the truth of the matter is that I think that the attitude you have in your heart toward your spouse will transform on your own as you avoid the acts themselves and in your spiritual development through the sacraments and devotions. I honestly think that understanding that chaste marital relations doesn’t involve lust can be a help in understanding the Church’s teachings on masturbation, daydreaming and other grave acts of sin. So to me, it gives clarity by showing what our hearts will look like once chastity is completely restored. And then there’s the fact that we often use the terms lust and chastity without comprehending what they mean. So these understandings are in fact a part of the tools.

 

[cynic]

the-3rd-parent:

From the CCC:
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.

As I already said, even if you are fantasizing about giving yourself to another person, the primary motivation to do this is out of lust, for your own self gratification.

and you can’t fantasize about unity with your husband or wife?who says such fantasies are based solely on physical pleasure?, even sinful fantasies often aren’t all about physical sensations. Why is the primary motivation lust when in this situation it involves somebody you know and love (spouse)? and what if it is based on memory, your wedding night etc.

the-3rd-parent:

Since when is having a funny conversation with your wife a sacramental act? Since when is it a symbol of your spiritual and emotional unity? Since when is it an image of the Holy Trinity? Since when is the pleasure of remembering a funny conversation anywhere similar to engaging in lustful thoughts?

the principle is the same, I am using a memory of her (or anyone I might have had a funny conversation with) for my own ‘self gratifiction’. Which is bad, apparently.

the-3rd-parent:

Actually, some of the best spiritual advice I was given was to not fantasize, especially when it involves romance, about things that have not happened. This is especially helpful in dating. A lot of times, when we date someone, we’re so eager to spend more time with them that we spend fictional time with them in our minds. We often spend more time with our fictitious version of the person we are infatuated with than with the actual person and our minds have difficulty telling the difference. That’s why dating someone you’ve been crushing over for months rarely works, because we’ve fallen for this ideal of who we want them to be instead of actually spending the time getting to know them and falling for who they are.

I wouldn’t say it is a sin to think about such fictitious things that aren’t sexual in nature, but I do think it is good practice to avoid it. The rule is, if you’re going to think about the person, think about what has already happened. It’ll help you remember conversations better and thus help you to remember things about the person you may otherwise forget. It focuses you on actually falling in love with that particular person rather than falling “in love” with the image you have established of that person. To love you have to know that person. Fantasies are motivated only by our own self love. If I were married, why should I waste my time daydreaming about sex? If I can’t have sex at the time, than I should seek ways to actually express my love to that person at that moment. Laying around on bed or on a couch or in the car dreaming about being with that person does not send my heart to my partner. It doesn’t make him anymore capable of receiving my life, even if I’m rationalizing it because “Hey I’m thinking about how I can make the experience better for him.” Since when is the imaginary version of your spouse a reliable source?

all this only makes sense within the narrow context you describe. Thinking about things that have already happened is still a sin by your definition, since those memories are being indulged in for ‘self gratification’. And that’s the crux of your argument, self gratification, no mattter the nature or context within which it is sought, is evil.

So, to sum up, sexuality is ok. It is the sexual desires between husband and wife that are sinful
(those desires originate in the mind, so one must have thought about them, outside of the actual context of making love, making them wrong)

 

[levi86]

langlob:

I am aware that the Church teaches lust is a mortal sin and entertaining sexual fantasies, masturbation, etc. all falls under that category. However, is there a line? Is thinking about sex a sin? Sex is a natural part of life, and it is natural to desire it. Is there anything wrong with wilfully arousing yourself with thoughts about sex? What if the thoughts are about sex with one’s future hypothetical spouse? Is it wrong to anticipate marital relations in this way (i.e. mentally)?

It’s just that as a young male, I find thoughts about sex to be a natural part of life that’s difficult to escape from. So long as these thoughts don’t involve masturbation or lust for another person, is there anything wrong with them? I mean, isn’t it unreasonable to expect a person to go through life never thinking about sex until he/she gets married? Does the Church have a teaching on this matter? Thank-you.

**Matthew 5:27-28
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. **

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

and you can’t fantasize about unity with your husband or wife?who says such fantasies are based solely on physical pleasure?

Well if you go by that logic, then a single person can fantasize about sex so long as they’re thinking about bonding with the other person. It doesn’t work that way. Sexual pleasure is more than physical sexual pleasure. There is emotional sexual pleasure which tends to be what women lust after and it comes when you imagine uniting with that person. The problem is that you are not actually uniting. You can’t experience the unitive and procreative parts of sex without participating in it with another person.

Why is the primary motivation lust when in this situation it involves somebody you know and love (spouse)? and what if it is based on memory, your wedding night etc.

What fantasy isn’t based on memory? But lack of experience doesn’t protect teens from impure thoughts and fantasies. They work with what they know of the experience through movies, and sometimes wrongly through self experimentation.

the principle is the same, I am using a memory of her (or anyone I might have had a funny conversation with) for my own ‘self gratifiction’. Which is bad, apparently.

But its not simple “you can’t seek self gratification of any kind” that makes it sinful. It is that sex is sacred. It is to draw us out of ourselves and to become an image of the Holy Trinity. It is because the elevated status of the marital act that our sexuality is so vehemently attacked by Satan, that we are constantly tempted to desecrate it. A humorous conversation is not comparable to sex.

And that’s the crux of your argument, self gratification, no mattter the nature or context within which it is sought, is evil

No, it is not. You are over-applying what I stated.

So, to sum up, sexuality is ok. It is the sexual desires between husband and wife that are sinful
(those desires originate in the mind, so one must have thought about them, outside of the actual context of making love, making them wrong)

No, lustful desires are sinful. What I see sad about this statement and others I have read on other sites is that it appears to me that there are individuals out there who have embraced and cultivated lust so deep within their hearts that they cannot imagine sexual desire without lust. Its what motivated people to laugh at Pope John Paul II when he mentioned that the sexual relations between husband and wife should be lust-free.

The question to ask yourself is which are you desiring more: your spouse or the sexual gratification? How are you truly desiring your spouse when you are able to satisfy your desires through merely using an imaginary version of your spouse? Your sexual desires should lead you to long to be with the real people, not to be isolated in your own mind.

Perhaps that’s why someone had to mention about being married for 20 years, almost as if newly weds didn’t count. I could easily speculate that the more we give into daydreaming about our partner, the more we begin to have to rely on those dreams to desire our spouse at all.

 

[Al_Masetti]

So I guess sex is ok, only if you don’t enjoy it.

Same thing applies to food. No condiments or seasonings. Food + heat = cooking.

Ditto clothing. Only own one outfit and only one pair of shoes; buy new ones only when the old ones are totally threadbare and worn out. Don’t need closets; one nail on the back of the bedroom door will suffice.

No smiling allowed.

On Sunday, go to all the Masses, so as to assure no time or effort is expended in frivolity.

And no sports of any kind.

Did I omit anything.

 

[MrIrish]

volzcpa:

One rule of thumb that I have heard is:

“Would you do it if Jesus was standing in front of you watching?”

If we lived by this rule, we would not take showers, use the toilet, dress/undress, brush our teeth, engage in the marital act, and a whole host of other activities. This is an inappropriate rule to live by and is not the teaching of the Church. A better question to ask when contemplating an act might be “is this displeasing to God?” If the answer is no (because it’s morally good or morally neutral), then we are free to engage in the act.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Al Masetti:

So I guess sex is ok, only if you don’t enjoy it.

I never said that. In fact, I would think it morally wrong to surpress your enjoyment of the act. How are you giving yourself to your spouse if you refuse to take joy in the gift given to you? Its like opening presents at Christmas. Of course, you should enjoy the gift you were given. But, a lot of times we get tempted to the idea that its all about the gift and not the act of love it was for your partner to give you the gift. It may mean that we should simplify the act and relearn to enjoy the things we have forgotten how to enjoy, but it doesn’t mean that the act should be joyless.

I think our culture suffers from the same consumerish attitude toward sex as it does at Christmas. We spend too much time trying to figure out what is the best possible gift we could give our spouse, what will our spouse actually appreciate because our spouse is a tough crowd much like a little kid whose going to get upset because you didn’t spend $40 getting him the exact toy he had on his Christmas list but instead got him a toy he’s never even heard of.

I think if we learned a type of poverty in spirit toward our sexuality and developed a sort of renewed innocense, we’d actually enjoy sex a lot more than we do with our current attitudes.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

MrIrish:

If we lived by this rule, we would not take showers, use the toilet, dress/undress, brush our teeth, engage in the marital act, and a whole host of other activities. This is an inappropriate rule to live by and is not the teaching of the Church. A better question to ask when contemplating an act might be “is this displeasing to God?” If the answer is no (because it’s morally good or morally neutral), then we are free to engage in the act.

Do you really think sex is displeasing to God and a morally neutral thing? I think the only reason we’d be uncomfortable with the man Jesus standing in the bedroom watching us is because we liken it to having anyone else watch us. What could that person be getting out of it accept for some of their own lustful enjoyment in watching us?

You have to understand that sex is good. God wants you to be having sex with your spouse. Call me strange, but I would consider loving my spouse as a way of loving God through my spouse.

 

[cynic]

the-3rd-parent:

Call me strange, but I would consider loving my spouse as a way of loving God through my spouse.

how predictable, you talk of love and self giving endlessly but when it comes down to it that is all based on some impersonal detached view of marriage and human relationships. Now I know that you are repeating what you’ve heard elsewhere because (some) other catholics of same persuasion ahve said exactly the same thing. We should love only God, the other person is just the means to this and your own spiritual growth etc. Anything else is infatuation. No attachements to the created. We should love only because we are commanded to love, ie.your spouse could be anyone. It’s a very cold and lonely view of marriage.

//The question to ask yourself is which are you desiring more: your spouse or the sexual gratification?//

others who are married might say that (ideally) those are the same thing. ie gratification is based on desire for your spouse. There is no clear line between the two.

 

[TZiggy]

you are repeating what you’ve heard elsewhere because (some) other catholics of same persuasion ahve said exactly the same thing.

It’s a very cold and lonely view of marriage.

others who are married might say that (ideally) those are the same thing. ie gratification is based on desire for your spouse. There is no clear line between the two.

BINGO!
You see 3rd Parent. This is exactly my point. Understanding the theory is much different than putting it into practice. Explaining a theory without having experienced real life application of said theory, lends a somewhat unreasonable tone to the point you’re trying to put across. Again, having lived through the practice you’re speaking of (a prolonged abstinence supported by prayer lead to insights regarding this issue), I understand your point. What you don’t understand is that it’s not coming across well. Fantasizing is a very convoluted issue when it comes to married couples. I agree, there is a line. I also agree with many posting. It’s not as you would portray it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Actually, I really printed out and read Pope Benedict’s first encyclical and it’s pretty down to earth. Got it right here. First encyclical that I’ve actually enjoyed reading. He uses all the various words for love. And makes distinctions.

Agape. Eros. Philia. And all that.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Pretty nifty.

We need to do the same for “lust”… make distinctions. Some of the previous distinctions merely just seem to focus on “strong”, “very strong” and “really really strong”.

EVIL…

Sometimes the discussion of lust gets lost in the technical Latin… concupiescence, and all that…

It’s more than sex… it’s life force… it’s desire… it’s interest… libido, enthusiasm…

Marriage is different from friendship. And some folks seem to want the benefits and intimacy (and even heroism) of friendship without the unique (physical) intimacy of marriage.

All four elements are necessary… the benefits (working together), the emotional sharing kind of intimacy, the heroism (self-sacrifice), and the sexual intimacy…

And some folks resent being “used” when words like “love” and “lust” get used interchangeably.

Women don’t like being manipulated into being nothing more than glorified maids and cooks and nannies.

Men don’t like being manipulated into being nothing more than glorified meal tickets and handymen and carfixers.

Those kinds of roles and functions are necessary for a marriage and family and household… but they aren’t the sufficient condition… stopping there doesn’t make a marriage and family…

… what’s missing in the list is the eros… the physical intimacy

Men don’t want to be treated as if they are like girlfriends… intimate emotional talk and no action. They don’t want to participate in situations of all agape and philia and no eros.

Men want their essential and unique natures to be recognized.

There is more and more discussion of the feminization of males and it is good that the discussion is finally taking place.

 

[MrIrish]

the-3rd-parent:

Do you really think sex is displeasing to God and a morally neutral thing? I think the only reason we’d be uncomfortable with the man Jesus standing in the bedroom watching us is because we liken it to having anyone else watch us. What could that person be getting out of it accept for some of their own lustful enjoyment in watching us?

You have to understand that sex is good. God wants you to be having sex with your spouse. Call me strange, but I would consider loving my spouse as a way of loving God through my spouse.

When I said “act” in my last sentence, I did not specifically mean the marital act. I meant any action we might take.

 

[maryj]

Al Masetti:

Actually, I really printed out and read Pope Benedict’s first encyclical and it’s pretty down to earth. Got it right here. First encyclical that I’ve actually enjoyed reading. He uses all the various words for love. And makes distinctions.

Agape. Eros. Philia. And all that.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Pretty nifty.

We need to do the same for “lust”… make distinctions. Some of the previous distinctions merely just seem to focus on “strong”, “very strong” and “really really strong”.

EVIL…

Sometimes the discussion of lust gets lost in the technical Latin… concupiescence, and all that…

It’s more than sex… it’s life force… it’s desire… it’s interest… libido, enthusiasm…

Marriage is different from friendship. And some folks seem to want the benefits and intimacy (and even heroism) of friendship without the unique (physical) intimacy of marriage.

All four elements are necessary… the benefits (working together), the emotional sharing kind of intimacy, the heroism (self-sacrifice), and the sexual intimacy…

And some folks resent being “used” when words like “love” and “lust” get used interchangeably.

Women don’t like being manipulated into being nothing more than glorified maids and cooks and nannies.

Men don’t like being manipulated into being nothing more than glorified meal tickets and handymen and carfixers.

Those kinds of roles and functions are necessary for a marriage and family and household… but they aren’t the sufficient condition… stopping there doesn’t make a marriage and family…

… what’s missing in the list is the eros… the physical intimacy

Men don’t want to be treated as if they are like girlfriends… intimate emotional talk and no action. They don’t want to participate in situations of all agape and philia and no eros.

Men want their essential and unique natures to be recognized.

There is more and more discussion of the feminization of males and it is good that the discussion is finally taking place.

Ah a voice of maturity. What a great, great post. Thank you.