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.
Grace & Peace!

I am no expert, but the danger inherent in this is similar to the danger inherent in pornography, which is this, as I see it: self-referential erotic consumption of another’s pleasure. A voyeuristic act (which is the act of watching porn) is basically self-centered and tends to objectify (and in the process, dehumanize) the person(s).

In filming the sex act and viewing it later, even if it’s only for your consumption and no one else’s, the effect is that you’ve made yourselves into image-objects for a very self-referential act of consumption.

Of course, I’m assuming the presence of a particular emotional disposition to the film: that you will be consuming it erotically, that in the act of lovemaking, you were performing for the cold eye of the camera and therefore not totally present to each other–in other words, you were using each other. I could be entirely wrong. Perhaps you intended the film to be purely forensic. Even so, I think the danger of misusing the image is there.

But these are just my two cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
LovedForever said:
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.
Click to expand...
IF the act itself is a sin… That is what I said on the matter of whether MOTIVATION is a factor.

Whether or not it IS a sin, only the Priest who hears the confession will administer that. Not just anybody in this public forum.
Obviously, there is such as thing as FORMED CONSCIENCE. Lacking this, there is a danger when making judgment. Like we cannot rely on Hitler to render judgment on humanitarian questions based on his CONSCIENCE.
 
Will someone please tell me this is a wind-up.I cannot believe that we are seriously debating this topic.

Amazing, truely amazing. All the cruelty in the world, vulnerable people dying from hunger and denial of their rightful share of the worlds resources, folk in Oriental, Indian and African sweatshops working 18-hours a day for a $1 a day. In some South American countries, computer manufacturers do not pay staff while they are training. They get no sick pay medical care or holiday pay. They work for a poultry sum. The owners are multi-billionares, etc etc and all we worry about is ‘the sin of the bedroom’!!!

I think our sense of morality has gone seriously off track.
 
Chancellare said:
IF the act itself is a sin… That is what I said on the matter of whether MOTIVATION is a factor.

Whether or not it IS a sin, only the Priest who hears the confession will administer that. Not just anybody in this public forum.
Obviously, there is such as thing as FORMED CONSCIENCE. Lacking this, there is a danger when making judgment. Like we cannot rely on Hitler to render judgment on humanitarian questions based on his CONSCIENCE.
Click to expand...
No, the question here is whether or not this act constitutes a “sin” - if it is in and of itself “sinful.”
NO ONE has given a compelling arguement why it would be sinful.
A conscience would be “MIS-informed” if it considered something a sin that wasn’t.

Also, someone doesn’t confess something in the confessional they do not consider a sin. So how can a priest counsel to it?:confused:
 
Wow… you folks are blowing me away! :eek:

I’m just in the process of joining the Catholic church. Just started looking at it 2 months ago.

I haven’t really delved into the whole “sexual morality” issue yet, but from some of the things I’ve read, it looks like a lot of you believe that sex is intended mainly for reproduction and not so much for enjoyment. Did I understand this correctly? :confused:

Hence a few questions:
When I was a Baptist, I got a vasectomy (9 years ago). Baptists don’t consider this to be wrong.

Is this something that I need to confess in my “first confession”?
Is this something that I should get reversed? (we already have 3 children - I’m 42, just in case that makes any difference)
If sex is mainly for reproduction, what is the explanation for NFP? Isn’t that cheating? (sorry… some of these questions are probably pretty dumb… I’m an ultra-green :bounce: newbie!!)

I’d really appreciate it if someone could give me the “condensed party line” about this whole “sex in marriage” thing.

Thanks!
Tom
 
Wow… you folks are blowing me away! :eek:

I’m just in the process of joining the Catholic church. Just started looking at it 2 months ago.

I haven’t really delved into the whole “sexual morality” issue yet, but from some of the things I’ve read, it looks like a lot of you believe that sex is intended mainly for reproduction and not so much for enjoyment. Did I understand this correctly? :confused:

Hence a few questions:
When I was a Baptist, I got a vasectomy (9 years ago). Baptists don’t consider this to be wrong.
Is this something that I need to confess in my “first confession”?
Is this something that I should get reversed? (we already have 3 children - I’m 42, just in case that makes any difference)
If sex is mainly for reproduction, what is the explanation for NFP? Isn’t that cheating? (sorry… some of these questions are probably pretty dumb… I’m an ultra-green :bounce: newbie!!)

I’d really appreciate it if someone could give me the “condensed party line” about this whole “sex in marriage” thing.

Thanks!
Tom
 
tomch said:
Wow… you folks are blowing me away! :eek:

I’m just in the process of joining the Catholic church. Just started looking at it 2 months ago.

I haven’t really delved into the whole “sexual morality” issue yet, but from some of the things I’ve read, it looks like a lot of you believe that sex is intended mainly for reproduction and not so much for enjoyment. Did I understand this correctly? :confused:

Hence a few questions:
When I was a Baptist, I got a vasectomy (9 years ago). Baptists don’t consider this to be wrong.

Is this something that I need to confess in my “first confession”?
Is this something that I should get reversed? (we already have 3 children - I’m 42, just in case that makes any difference)
If sex is mainly for reproduction, what is the explanation for NFP? Isn’t that cheating? (sorry… some of these questions are probably pretty dumb… I’m an ultra-green :bounce: newbie!!)

I’d really appreciate it if someone could give me the “condensed party line” about this whole “sex in marriage” thing.

Thanks!
Tom
Click to expand...
Tom - Welcome to the forum and God Bless your journey (home!) into the Catholic Church! 😃

To answer your question whether or not the church teaches that sex is intended just for reproduction - the answer is NO!
God’s design and purpose of marital sex is twofold: Unitive and procreative. BOTH are equally important.
That said, it is very, very important to understand the deep and beautiful theological foundations of what marriage and sex are and signify. When you understand this you will know why ALL sexual acts (marital of course) must be “open to life.”
To cut that off, to render it sterile, is to in essence HOLD BACK a part of yourself so that the act is no longer completely and 100% “self-giving” - which is to mirror God’s total and complete unconditional LOVE for us demonstrated by Christ’s giving completely of himself on the cross - as well as an image of the Trinity where the love between God the Father and God the Son is so great that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”…(just as the love between husband and wife is so great that a third person (baby) can proceed from their union and love!) If it is not completely “self-giving” holding nothing - including your fertility back - then it becomes “self-ISH.” And ceases to mirror our Loving God. Thus - being illicit. Whew!
A mouthful and obviously very incomplete - but a quick summary, with just a bit more to add for you:

So when you understand marriage/the marriage act and the beauty and truth of it - many things will then begin to make sense and fall into place as they are ALL connected: artificial contraception, fornication, lust, homosexual acts, abortion etc.
These are not isolated issues - but all theologically are connected to the one truth in God’s design for man and woman and marriage.

I highly recommend that you purchase the book by Christopher West called “Good News About Sex & Marriage” - based on “Theology of the Body.”
He is an expert theologian on this entire topic and does a fantastic job of explaining it all.

Oh - to answer your other questions - NO, you do not have to have a reversal for your vasectomy. You are not required to undergo surgery etc. - but to carry on with your HEART and body (in whatever state it is in) - “open to life” and God’s will. *(Again - Christopher West’s books and “Theology of the Body” will help this all make complete sense!)
And NFP is not “cheating” because one must be “open to life” only when engaging in intercourse. It is THIS act that requires great reverence and faithfulness. There is no “act” in abstaining.

God Bless you and I hope I have not confused you! :eek:
 
🙂 Thanks very much, LovedForever. What you said makes perfect sense, and I’m relieved to know it’s not what I thought.

Last night, my sponsor at RCIA also mentioned the Christopher West book you suggested. I’m adding it to my “books to get” list.

Thanks!
 
Can a husband and wife view themselves in a mirror while they’re making love?? I think that this whole concept is out of proportion. Yes, while the video could be mistakenly found in the wrong hands (which is not your intent), it is a video of yourselves. If the act of sexual intimacy is so beautiful between a husband and wife then why could it not be viewed by just themselves? God gave married couples the gift of sex to enjoy and bring them closer ultimately with children. ALL of my confessors tell me that any foreplay is acceptable if the act ends with intercourse. This seems like a great form of foreplay and I cannot see this as a sin if both parties agree.

Why are we so hung up on details between husbands and wives when the majority of sexual relations occur outside of marriage? Praise God for your loving wife and enjoy the gift that God gave the two of you to grow in love…
 
My opinion only

On the one hand it is a video of 2 people in love and married fulfilling a sacrament.

But sometimes these videos are used to sexualize in a negative way what you two are doing.

It is a slippery slope,
 
teachccd said:
Can a husband and wife view themselves in a mirror while they’re making love?? I think that this whole concept is out of proportion. Yes, while the video could be mistakenly found in the wrong hands (which is not your intent), it is a video of yourselves. If the act of sexual intimacy is so beautiful between a husband and wife then why could it not be viewed by just themselves? God gave married couples the gift of sex to enjoy and bring them closer ultimately with children. ALL of my confessors tell me that any foreplay is acceptable if the act ends with intercourse. This seems like a great form of foreplay and I cannot see this as a sin if both parties agree.

Why are we so hung up on details between husbands and wives when the majority of sexual relations occur outside of marriage? Praise God for your loving wife and enjoy the gift that God gave the two of you to grow in love…
Click to expand...
Great post! You make a very important point: that any form of foreplay (mutually agreed upon) between husband and wife is acceptable as long as the husband completes inside his wife. The reality is that God made each and every one of us an “individual” with personal likes and dislikes - even when it comes to foreplay. What might arouse one - may not do anything for another.
As long as there is nothing intrinsically “sinful” involved (such as porn with other actors etc.) then it is private between husband and wife.

One can “pervert” a kiss if they wanted to.
However no one would consider a “kiss” sinful in and of itself.
It depends on your intention toward the one being kissed…

So a private photo or film of spouses with each other can be tastefully used between them and it would not be “sinful.”
THAT part - is up to them.
 
LovedForever said:
Great post! You make a very important point: that any form of foreplay (mutually agreed upon) between husband and wife is acceptable as long as the husband completes inside his wife. The reality is that God made each and every one of us an “individual” with personal likes and dislikes - even when it comes to foreplay. What might arouse one - may not do anything for another.
As long as there is nothing intrinsically “sinful” involved (such as porn with other actors etc.) then it is private between husband and wife.

One can “pervert” a kiss if they wanted to.
However no one would consider a “kiss” sinful in and of itself.
It depends on your intention toward the one being kissed…

So a private photo or film of spouses with each other can be tastefully used between them and it would not be “sinful.”
THAT part - is up to them.
Click to expand...
👍
 
LovedForever said:
No, the question here is whether or not this act constitutes a “sin” - if it is in and of itself “sinful.”
NO ONE has given a compelling arguement why it would be sinful.
A conscience would be “MIS-informed” if it considered something a sin that wasn’t.

Also, someone doesn’t confess something in the confessional they do not consider a sin. So how can a priest counsel to it?:confused:
Click to expand...
One who loves gun is more likely to shoot than another who does not. Similarly, going to a whore house will bring you closer to fornication more than another who does not. I don’t have to prove this argument to say that filiming the sex act is similar to this. The whole argument is also the same in proving the contraception mentality as the generator of sexual sins. The whole economy of sin rests on the infrastructure prior to actual commitment of the act. When the mind is focused on pleasure apart from the sanctity of the act, the only next step is the commssion of the sin.

The whole porn industry depends on the argument that the film itself is not sinful.

Yes, we can prove that filming the act for own use is not sin but I would not recommend it toa friend whom I care for to go to heaven.

Those who insist that its not a sin, good for you.
 
Chancellare said:
One who loves gun is more likely to shoot than another who does not. Similarly, going to a whore house will bring you closer to fornication more than another who does not. I don’t have to prove this argument to say that filiming the sex act is similar to this. The whole argument is also the same in proving the contraception mentality as the generator of sexual sins. The whole economy of sin rests on the infrastructure prior to actual commitment of the act. When the mind is focused on pleasure apart from the sanctity of the act, the only next step is the commssion of the sin.

The whole porn industry depends on the argument that the film itself is not sinful.

Yes, we can prove that filming the act for own use is not sin but I would not recommend it toa friend whom I care for to go to heaven.

Those who insist that its not a sin, good for you.
Click to expand...
Saint Augustine believed that the pleasure experienced during sexual intercourse was sinful. I believe that the Church has improved upon that line of thinking. However, after reading your post I think that we’re back in the fifth century. God invented sex, we didn’t. He made it pleasurable and a husband and wife should enjoy that gift without guilt. To do anything less is to degrade what God gave us. A couple viewing themselves in a video cannot be compared to pornography no more than foreplay can be compared to pornographic activity. Why are we so hung up on intimacy between married people who use a video to enhance their love for each other? I wonder if there was no such thing as pornography, would we view this activity the same way?
 
teachccd said:
Saint Augustine believed that the pleasure experienced during sexual intercourse was sinful. I believe that the Church has improved upon that line of thinking. However, after reading your post I think that we’re back in the fifth century. God invented sex, we didn’t. He made it pleasurable and a husband and wife should enjoy that gift without guilt. To do anything less is to degrade what God gave us. A couple viewing themselves in a video cannot be compared to pornography no more than foreplay can be compared to pornographic activity. Why are we so hung up on intimacy between married people who use a video to enhance their love for each other? I wonder if there was no such thing as pornography, would we view this activity the same way?
Click to expand...
St Augustine was a Menichean before he became a Christian. Manicheanism believed sex was for the body which is sinful.
Do you need to video yuorselves eating dinner to make it appetizing? Video is not equal to intimacy. If one cannot have a hard on without viewing a video, then the sex life is a joke.
Getting pleasure from sex without considering the sanctity of the person is the oldest profession. Catholic teaching now follows TOB of JPII. This is 1989 update. So we are not in 5th century anymore.
 
Chancellare said:
When the mind is focused on pleasure apart from the sanctity of the act, the only next step is the commssion of the sin.
.
Click to expand...
This is where you make your error. Assuming that the personal film of the spouses would ONLY be used to focus the mind on “pleasure apart from the sanctity of the act.” You cannot assume this and you have now ruled out ANY foreplay.
Foreplay is by definition acts LEADING UP TO the “sanctity of the act.”
 
Chancellare said:
St Augustine was a Menichean before he became a Christian. Manicheanism believed sex was for the body which is sinful.
Do you need to video yuorselves eating dinner to make it appetizing? Video is not equal to intimacy.If one cannot have a hard on without viewing a video, then the sex life is a joke.
Getting pleasure from sex without considering the sanctity of the person is the oldest profession. Catholic teaching now follows TOB of JPII. This is 1989 update. So we are not in 5th century anymore.
Click to expand...
Those are sacred words…:eek: How does that take away from the sanctity of the person?? Oral sex is approved by ALL of my confessors as foreplay as long as it leads to intercourse. Is that activity taking away from the sanctity of the person if mutually agreed upon? Maybe I just love my spouse too much to see any act of love making as “dirty” or unsanctifying.

And by the way, you never videotaped a family Thanksgiving meal to view later and feel good about the event? Many people I know video tape many personal events: birthday parties, sporting events, weddings, etc. It seems like we are hung up on sex and are so rigid. Don’t do this and don’t do that. If it is procreative and conjugal then it’s sacred. And you are 100% right, we are NOT in the fifth century anymore.👍
 
LovedForever said:
This is where you make your error. Assuming that the personal film of the spouses would ONLY be used to focus the mind on “pleasure apart from the sanctity of the act.” You cannot assume this and you have now ruled out ANY foreplay.
Foreplay is by definition acts LEADING UP TO the “sanctity of the act.”
Click to expand...
Very well said…👍
 
I’ll jump in here as a near 40-year-old guy, married for a little over a year to a light of a woman he hardly deserves, who used to purse lustful desires in his pre-married/pre-Christian life (which essentially were the decades of my 20s and 30s).
**
The videotaping of a sex act between the OP and his wife degrades his wife.**
**
The playback of said video holds no piety whatsoever and degrades his wife.**

I don’t need to read it in sacred scripture or the Catechism to know this truth. It is a deeply held conviction of the heart, a heart profoundly changed for the better once I availed myself to Jesus Christ.

I would urge the OP to delete the digital video file and pray intently on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top