This is the biggest error here. Lust is viewing anything as a sex object. Techincally your are lusting when you get aroused by the video instead of from your wife’s contact with you during foreplay. During that moment you are using the image to get aroused. As JPII has said, a man looking at his wife with lust has sinned againest purity.
Since the Catechism calls the married to marital chastity, I don’t understand how looking at your unclothed spouse is consistent with that. Surely the gaze that objectifies someone when a picture or video is involved is just as wrong as a gaze that objectifies someone “in the flesh” - even if the motivation is to move to the marital act.
He said “a man looking at his wife WITH LUST” sins… Not a “man looking at his wife” and becoming aroused! “Aroused” does not equal “Lust” - as some here seem to assume.
The CCC (#2351) says “Lust is disordered desire for OR inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” (Emphasis mine.) To the degree that a man could take “inordinate enjoyment” in looking at his naked wife, it would seem that maybe that’s something he’s NOT supposed to do. I just wish the Catechism was clearer on defining “inordinate.”
billpenn, send me the video immediately so I may review it and make my decision on if its wrong or not.
Visual process during marital act is concentrated to personal interaction between spouses. Therefore the arousal comes from personal loving touch combined with the real image of the spouse, not from viewing the video monitor. My presumption is based on the fact that marital act was not designed to be filmed, that it’s not a spectator sport.
Inordinate: function: adjective: Etymology: Middle English inordinat, from Latin inordinatus, from in- + ordinatus, past participle of ordinare to arrange – more at ORDAIN
Or a person who does not assume that they know what a word means until they understand the definition.
Can’t agree. The Catechism – the Church – is FULL of definitions. The Catechism defines chastity, lust, sin, the difference between mortal and venial sin, everything . . . why is it wrong to expect some clarity, some definition around so important a principle as the difference between legitimate and disorded pleasure? Wanting to know this doesn’t make one a hair-splitter, nor is it proper to assume bad motivation in asking this.
Did you expect Cathecism has a different definition of “inordinate pleasure” than what is in the dictionary?
Worse: Or a person who assumes a different meaning than what is already known to all by reference to the dictionary.
Potentially, yes. In moral matters the Magisterium determines the rules and sets out where the “moral guardrails” are - not a dictionary or an etymological study of word roots. Plus, terms such as “immoderate” or, in this case, inordinate, are inherently subjective. One person could consider their drinking habits to be fine while a second person could see that individual’s habits as immoderate. And finally, just what is the problem with my seeking a little moral guidance here?
Has anyone looked up the simple definition of pornography itself without using the CCC? Well here it is from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Why assume the worst?
You have all the prerogatives to seek the boundaries of meanings and the “moral guard rails”. I hope you find it soon, hopefully in CA or elsewhere.
You were the one who introduced different assumptions. Why assume the ideal?
Right to the point. Agree.
No, I didn’t. Perhaps you should reread my post. I talked about someone who did not assume in response to your presupposition that one who would need a definition intended to “split hairs.” So, I am assuming neither the worst nor an ideal. But, if I had too, I do not believe it is ever appropriate to assume the worst. Plan for the worst, but do not assume it.
