Sin to watch a video the wife and I made?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billpenn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StCsDavid said:
Let’s look at that definition of adultery. If you examine the Latin Vulgate, you will see that the word Christ uses here is moechaberis which more closely translates “to defile” or “to corrupt.”
Click to expand...
Where did you get that? If it is classic Greek, than it is 400 years off from what Jesus spoke and the meaning that should be assigned.

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3429

moixa/omai from (3432)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Moichao moy-khah’-o studylight.org/images/audio.gif Parts of SpeechTDNT Verb 4:729,605 Definition

  1. *]to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with
    From the catechism:
    Adultery

    [2380](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
    Adultery refers to marital infidelity
    Click to expand...
    As to Lust:
    [2351](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
    Click to expand...
    [ Lust](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow() 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.
    The only problem with this definition is that in the current context, it only begs the question of what is inordinate and whether this type of activity is separative from the unitve function. The section of the catechism on adultery deals more with the fidelity issue than the lust issue, though.

    Here is the link:
    usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm
 
I can’t quote a source, but isn’t the objectification of anyone (and in this instance, your wife and even yourself) a sin?
 
pnewton said:
Where did you get that? If it is classic Greek, than it is 400 years off from what Jesus spoke and the meaning that should be assigned.

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3429

moixa/omai from (3432)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Moichao moy-khah’-o studylight.org/images/audio.gif Parts of SpeechTDNT Verb 4:729,605 Definition

  1. *]to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with
    From the catechism:

    As to Lust:
    .
    The only problem with this definition is that in the current context, it only begs the question of what is inordinate and whether this type of activity is separative from the unitve function. The section of the catechism on adultery deals more with the fidelity issue than the lust issue, though.

    Here is the link:
    usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm
Click to expand...

  1. So doesn’t defiling your wife in thought strike at the very heart of that fidelity? Are we not then using relativism to define that which should be absolute? The proposition seems to be that one can’t lust after any woman except one’s wife. One can set one’s own standard in that regard. Lust becomes a subjective sin. One man’s lust is anothers norm. That seems out of character for Christ’s teachings. What was His motive for being so illusive in this regard? Or are we to believe that the people He was speaking with just assumed that lusting after one’s wife was already okay; so no clarification was needed?
 
StCsDavid said:
So doesn’t defiling your wife in thought strike at the very heart of that fidelity? Are we not then using relativism to define that which should be absolute?
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite. I am trying not to be relative, but sticking to absolutes. Adultery has a definite meaning. It doesn’t mean different things to different people. It is cheatin on your wife. Fidelity? There is no “heart of fidelity”. It is being faithful to your wife by not having sex with another. These are very concrete, absolute terms. They can not be redefined to permit adultery, or to include extras.

Yes, I believe a man can lust after his wife. I would use the guideline in the catechism that when the action is divisive and not unitive.

If something is out of character for Christ teaching or of the Church’s teaching, then unless the specifics can be pointed out, I would be slow to judge someone. The church clearly defines much sin (as in the case above) and there is no doubt. To where something is not clearly defined, or even mentioned, why assume it is sin? I have no problem being relative where the church is relative.
 
pnewton said:
Quite the opposite. I am trying not to be relative, but sticking to absolutes. Adultery has a definite meaning. It doesn’t mean different things to different people. It is cheatin on your wife. Fidelity? There is no “heart of fidelity”. It is being faithful to your wife by not having sex with another. These are very concrete, absolute terms. They can not be redefined to permit adultery, or to include extras.

Yes, I believe a man can lust after his wife. I would use the guideline in the catechism that when the action is divisive and not unitive.

If something is out of character for Christ teaching or of the Church’s teaching, then unless the specifics can be pointed out, I would be slow to judge someone. The church clearly defines much sin (as in the case above) and there is no doubt. To where something is not clearly defined, or even mentioned, why assume it is sin? I have no problem being relative where the church is relative.
Click to expand...
If lust is disordered desire…how can it ever be unitive? The selfish nature of lust makes it divisive by default. If nothing else, man chooses himself over his wife. He cheats on her, by giving his sexuality to himself instead of her. An ordered, unitive desire for the spouse would not be considered lust.

As to the relative teaching perceived, would it not be better to error on the side of piety and virture versus pushing the envelope of sin? Maintaining the dignity of the spouse seems more Christ-like than demeaning her in thought using the technicality that one cannot find or understand a reason not to in the catechism or sacred scripture.
 
Finally found the passage in Theology of the Body I was looking for. Please consider this from John Paul II as well:

Taking all that into consideration, we conclude that, as in understanding adultery in the flesh, Christ criticized the erroneous and one-sided interpretation of adultery that is derived from the failure to observe monogamy (that is, marriage understood as the indefectible covenant of persons), so also in understanding adultery in the heart, Christ takes into consideration not only the real juridical status of the man and woman in question. Christ also makes the moral evaluation of the desire depend above all on the personal dignity itself of the man and the woman; and this has its importance both when it is a question of persons who are not married, and—perhaps even more—when they are spouses, wife and husband.
 
pnewton said:
Quite the opposite. I am trying not to be relative, but sticking to absolutes. Adultery has a definite meaning. It doesn’t mean different things to different people. It is cheatin on your wife. Fidelity? There is no “heart of fidelity”. It is being faithful to your wife by not having sex with another. These are very concrete, absolute terms. They can not be redefined to permit adultery, or to include extras.

Yes, I believe a man can lust after his wife. I would use the guideline in the catechism that when the action is divisive and not unitive.

If something is out of character for Christ teaching or of the Church’s teaching, then unless the specifics can be pointed out, I would be slow to judge someone. The church clearly defines much sin (as in the case above) and there is no doubt. To where something is not clearly defined, or even mentioned, why assume it is sin? I have no problem being relative where the church is relative.
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of the video? Please explain how it is being used.

This is not an argument about adulteray vesus not adultery. It is about what glorifies God.

The marital bed has been violated by recording what went on.

In this case, it is not a matter of showing it is sinful. It is a matter of trying to demonstrate how this prmotes marital unity.

It sounds more like the husband has a problem with pronogrphy so he quickly switches to this video if he thinks th ewife is walking by.

Please explain how the making of this video glorifies God.

Finally, it would help if people who want to debate these type of subject do so from a perspective of truth, rather than trying to promote and excuse their favorite sinful attachment.
 
StCsDavid said:
If lust is disordered desire…how can it ever be unitive? The selfish nature of lust makes it divisive by default. If nothing else, man chooses himself over his wife. He cheats on her, by giving his sexuality to himself instead of her. An ordered, unitive desire for the spouse would not be considered lust.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I misworded what intended and should not have used the word “lust”. By definition one should not lust after his own wife. What I meant to say is one could sexually desire his wife and whether or not it was disordered (lust) would depend on whether it united or divided the two.
 
rpp said:
What is the purpose of the video? Please explain how it is being used.

This is not an argument about adulteray vesus not adultery. It is about what glorifies God.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you have read any of the thread, but please know that this is not my video. I have never even thought of such a thing. I only jumped in because many people were trying to talk for the church without using anything from the church. You are right that one should question whether it glorifies God or not. That is a good, prudent test.
 
water said:
Maybe the OP can post this concern in the forum ‘Ask Apologist’?
Click to expand...
This question WAS posed in Ask An Apologist by another poster and the answer given was that there was not technically anything wrong with it - but was it prudent? For instance in case someone else got ahold of it.

A decision has been made here by many posters for this couple. It has been decided by outside parties that the decision to film themselves making love in a very private - and to be KEPT private way - constitues LUST.
I would just caution everyone to not make that assumption for someone else.
You have NO way of knowing the motivation for this man and woman.
Perhaps, for instance, their motivation is to help ASSIST in their martial embrace. Perhaps one has difficulty in an area (maybe arousal) and this is their private attempt to better it.
I have no idea what their motivation is.
Nor does anyone else.
My point is - it CAN be something that would be completely allowable if used with the proper motivation and purpose.

I think that is what was behind the Apologists reply to the question.
 
Thank you.
I don’t think anyone here assumes. They simply point out the possibility of the situation and what might happen down the road if one engages into sort of things.

From my personally of view, I just say it is too much and the idea of doing this is not really healthy.
 
Can you use condoms if your with your wife? Nope. It stops one of the natural reasions for having relations with your wife. So watching a video is outside an area of whats natural. Having relations with ones wife is a way to express love. Not expressED.
 
This is a good question. I think the answer really depends on the intention of doing so. I have not read anything contrary in the Chatechism, so I dont believe it is “intrinsically” evil. If Fr. Serpa says its not a sin, it probably isnt. I never thought about doing something like that, Id be to embarrassed to watch myself! Also, Id be wayyy too afraid of someone finding it!!! Make sure its labeled so it doesnt get mixed up! LOL;)

I forgot to add, I dont think being natural or unnatural is necessarily grounds for sin. Whats more natural then having the marital embrace; I dont think its any different than having mirrors on your ceiling. Just a thought!
 
I must say that I am quite astonished by your post. My original post - excluding the quote from the CCC - was 50 words in length.

From these 50 words, you’ve been able to surmise that:
  1. I am not sincere, and
  2. I am toying with you and the other forum members, and
  3. that I have broken my marriage vows in many ways.
I must therefore surmise that you are being judgmental, as you have judged me to be insincere, somebody that wastes the time of others by toying with them, and somebody who has broken my marriage vows. 😦

I believe making such far-flung and unsupported judgments to be toying with the members of the forum - it takes the focus very far from my original purpose - soliciting opinions as to whether or not what we did was sinful. That’s toying in my book.

I will pray for you; may the Lord bless you abundantly.
mdstanzel said:
Even without telling anyone else it is a sin. All you have to do is form your concience and the truth would have been revealed to you. Prayer would have also revealed the truth to you had you sought it. By making a film for viewing you have stepped outside the marriage vow and transformed you and or your wife into an object of desire. This post in and of itself is sinful and you should be ashamed for having posted it. You’ve already violated your marriage vows in so many ways that I doubt your sincerity and believe that you are toying with us.

Don’t you believe in the communion of Saints? They and the Angels in heaven are your witnesses. Not to mention that we have witnessed this via electonic media. This distressed me and I will opt out not to participate in this thread and resign to prayer for you and especially your spouse and throw me in there as well so that I do not fall into the grave sin.
Click to expand...
 
billpenn said:
I must say that I am quite astonished by your post. My original post - excluding the quote from the CCC - was 50 words in length.

From these 50 words, you’ve been able to surmise that:
  1. I am not sincere, and
  2. I am toying with you and the other forum members, and
Hey Bill that makes two of us; I have been accused of the same by the extremists here!
Click to expand...
 
billpenn said:
I must say that I am quite astonished by your post. My original post - excluding the quote from the CCC - was 50 words in length.

From these 50 words, you’ve been able to surmise that:
  1. I am not sincere, and
  2. I am toying with you and the other forum members, and
Hey Bill that makes two of us; I have been accused of the same by the extremists here.
I am not talking about everyone, most are nice!
Click to expand...
 
LovedForever said:
This question WAS posed in Ask An Apologist by another poster and the answer given was that there was not technically anything wrong with it - but was it prudent? For instance in case someone else got ahold of it.

A decision has been made here by many posters for this couple. It has been decided by outside parties that the decision to film themselves making love in a very private - and to be KEPT private way - constitues LUST.
I would just caution everyone to not make that assumption for someone else.
You have NO way of knowing the motivation for this man and woman.
Perhaps, for instance, their motivation is to help ASSIST in their martial embrace. Perhaps one has difficulty in an area (maybe arousal) and this is their private attempt to better it.
I have no idea what their motivation is.
Nor does anyone else.
My point is - it CAN be something that would be completely allowable if used with the proper motivation and purpose.

I think that is what was behind the Apologists reply to the question.
Click to expand...
If the act itself is a sin, no motivation can add or subtract from the fact, except:
  • Gravity
  • Full knowledge
  • Willful consent
 
Chancellare said:
If the act itself is a sin, no motivation can add or subtract from the fact, except:
  • Gravity
  • Full knowledge
  • Willful consent
Click to expand...
The point is that it is NOT sinful in and of itself (videotaping).

No one is harming the dignity of the other as it is private between only the two spouses and mutually agreed upon. (Pornography is sinful because it ignores the dignity of the actors involved)

No one here has given any valid arguement WHY this would be sinful.
Only arguements “assuming” that it is. By personal opinion.

I would personally not want to videotape my spouse and I.
But I see nothing “sinful” with another married couple who wishes to do so.
And neither do the apologists here.
 
billpenn said:
From the CCC:

Given the above, would it be a sin to view a video (yes, that type of video) that my wife and I made? I underlined the part about 3rd parties because we are not displaying it to any 3rd party, nor was it made for that purpose.

Thoughts?

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
I would seriously suggest that both you and your wife go and see a Priest about this.

Peace,
Lee44
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top