The term "Adultery" and understanding Matthew 5:28

[Inity]

Greetings!

We have a discussion with a friend regarding Matthew 5:28 (But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.)

My friend says, bringing up wikipedia and dictionaries, and also CCC (va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm - paragraph 2380) that “adultery” as a term means exactly infidelity of married persons; and so, as he tries to prove me, an unmarried man is free to look with lust at unmarried woman, and this would not break the words of Christ.

In russian (our native) language, there are two different words for adultery (preljubodejanie) and sex of unmarried persons (fornication - blud), both are mortal sins. I asked him about the Commandment “Thou shall not commit adultery” - would he understand that like unmarried sex is okay? And he tends to say that unmarried union, and lust between unmarried persons, is a sin against chastity, but it does not break the rule set by Christ in Matthew 5:28.

He keeps telling me that “looking with lust is adultery” does not apply to unmarried persons.
I perfectly think that he’s playing word games, and what he says is sophistics… so I need help from english speakers regarding the term “adultery” and understanding this verse!

Many thanks!

 

[SomeSunnyDay]

Thank you for posting this question. As a non-Catholic, I’m a little confused myself about how Catholics define adultery, because I am in a situation which calls for clarity. There is a thread here about what I’m going through:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306958

In essence, I dated a man for two months, not knowing the whole time that he was married!!! Now I feel terrible about it and am trying to find out if either of us has committed adultery.

The majority of Catholics who responded to my thread seemed to agree that while what I did by dating him was not a sin (because I was unaware of his marital status at the time), they seem sure that he DID commit adultery.

However, I too am confused as to what he did was technically adultery, based on the interpretation of “adultery” you posted above. Since I am an unmarried single woman, perhaps what he did with me was not technically adultery, although I strongly feel that he did commit a sin against me, his wife and children, because he dated me for two months without TELLING ME THAT HE WAS A MARRIED MAN!

So he lied to and deceived us all. That is certainly a sin, but the question of how Catholics define adultery is one of interest to me since he is a Catholic. Maybe he thought he could go around dating single women behind his wife’s back because in his mind, what he was doing wasn’t “technically” committing adultery?

I’ll keep following your thread here and will be very interested to read the responses you get to this very confusing question!

 

[ForwardProgress]

It kind of makes sense, in a way…a single man or woman could look at a person with sexual attraction and not be sinning, as it’s kind of a part of finding a mate…or someone to copulate with and raise children…ie, a mate.

Someone who is in a covenant relationship with another should not want a sexual relationship or to dream about one with another person. That would be sinful.

Someone who is not in a covenant relationship should not look upon someone who is as a ‘target’, or one that he would steal away if he/she had the chance.

 

[SomeSunnyDay]

I’m not Catholic, but my interpretation of the scripture is that no married person should cheat on their spouse, whether the cheating is done with an unmarried or married person. Otherwise, why would the commandments address the subject twice?

“Thou shalt not commit adultery”
AND
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”

It seems the issue of cheating with someone else’s wife is addressed separately in the commandments (although I know this is more widely interpreted as an instruction not to take anything that does not belong to you), although that too, is certainly adultery.

Would most Catholics agree with the interpretation that ALL cheating is adultery, regardless of who you’re cheating with?

 

[Inity]

In my understanding of the commandments (and the term), yes, if married person “cheats” with unmarried person, this is adultery. It’s more important to me, should we call “adultery” sex/lust between two unmarried persons, or not. And, especially, is it sinful for an unmarried man to lust for unmarried woman?

It’s hard for me, because this friend of mine keeps teasing me with his lustful messages, however knowing that I’m discerning religious vocation. He thinks that having sexual dreams about someone, if both are unmarried, and especially having intention to marry, is not sinful. He said that he would like to marry me, but I don’t accept his proposal. He’s not a catholic, but orthodox (however I always believed that orthodox church has the same opinion about adultery as catholic church).

I think I would also ask our orthodox brethren in russian orthodox discussion group; let’s see what they say.

 

[SomeSunnyDay]

Our western society by and large views marriage today as a partnership with the woman as an equal.

However, in many countries of the world, even some Christian cultures today, wives are still viewed as a man’s property, and this belief, however misunderstood or frowned upon by us modern womenfolk today, is actually a strict interpretation of ancient law.

I discussed this perplexing question tonight over dinner with a friend of mine who is a Jewish Biblical scholar, and this is how she explained it to me. Quite fascinating, actually!

In Biblical times, the Jews understood “Thou shalt not commit adultery” very differently than we do today. Adultery was the sin of “trespassing” on a man’s property (thus, the distinction in the Commandments between “thou shalt not commit adultery” and “coveting thy neighbor’s wife”.) Until marriage women were the property of their fathers. After marriage they became the property of their husband.

Therefore, if a man had sex with an unmarried female (most likely still living under her father’s roof, as most unmarried women did), it was adultery and he had violated the 7th Commandment. If he had sex with another man’s wife, it was certainly adulterous. Additionally, he would be violating the 10th Commandment if he tried to steal her away from her husband/owner. (In cases of prostitutes, however, this was not considered adultery, since these women were regarded as no one’s property; they were often orphans who did not have fathers or owners. Interesting stuff, eh?)

Most marriages were arranged between the fathers of the boy and girl. In other cases if a man wanted a woman, he knocked on her father’s tent, offered the marriage price, and took a wife. The girl had little say in the matter. If he liked the girl he might return with more money to marry some of her sisters! Women were considered property. Adultery was a violation of the husbands’ property rights, not morality, and polygyny was the standard.

However, Jesus taught that women should be equal, but didn’t address the reason other than to be equal rather than a possession. It is generally believed that Jesus’ teaching (considered revolutionary at the time!) emphasized a more loving relationship between man and wife. The Sermon on the Mount is a wonderful example of Jesus reversing legalistic laws in favor of love.

Luckily, society has evolved much over the past 2000 years, especially our attitudes on the equality of women and our interpretation that marriage should be an equal partnership.
Obviously, today there is no longer polygamy, and men as well as women who have relations outside of marriage are nowadays considered adulterers.

Adultery, more fully understood Biblically, is the willful and harmful violation (adulteration) of the primary, the permanence, and the honesty of the marriage.

Christ’s teachings of love and the golden rule support today’s loving, respecting, monogamous marriages, and were way ahead of their time in many ways! The only real difference is that women now have the same rights within a marriage that men had in the time of Christ.

Cheating adultery is clearly wrong since it involves lying and deception, practices Christ said were forbidden then and which still holds true in our society today.

So next time you and your friend have this discussion, perhaps this will give him some food for thought. You’re both right!

 

[El_Raton]

Does Adultery ever apply other than with sex? I came across this statement on the internet expressed in a homily: "Adultery is not just about sex. It is about putting others and things before the one we are committed to in life. Essentially it is a violation of a vow made to God and to a husband or wife."

Is there a Moral Apologist available to respond to my question? I always thought it had only to do with sex between a married person and another. Now in the quoted statement I am hearing that just putting others and things [like hunting, bowling] before one’s spouse constitutes adultery. YES OR NO which is it? and Why?

 

[chevalier]

Being sexually attracted is not the same as looking with lust. Looking with lust (some proposed translations are, “who looks at a woman so as to lust for her,” or similar in meaning, generally denoting a lustful goal) is feasting on that other person. When we satiate our sexual desires through just looking. However, we should never try to downplay what Our Lord said or try to make it metaphorical when it isn’t clearly so. He exalted marriage quite a lot, made it a sacrament, even revealed that, “in the beginning, it was not so,” but our hearts were hard. This does mean that a wrongful look is adultery already. I only wouldn’t equate attraction to lust.

 

[El_Raton]

Good response, but does not answer my question. Please look at it again and then let me know if it does nor does not limit its scope to sex.

 

[peterpan]

im confused about marriage and divorce. i never cared much until my wife divorced me 11 years ago. i look around in the churchs (noncatholic) and see much confusion on the topic and alomost a different interpretation for each person “every man doing what is right in his own eyes” as you might guess or no i am not a catholic and i sort of envy you because altho it is very hard sometimes to live up to the church standard and teaching at least it seems to be clear.

I base off the bible - problem is the churches teach conflicting interpretations. Im afraid of getting away from God if i remarry and i have not – should i m trying to get my exwife back but now boyfriends live in type have woven themselves into our history. I have tried to be safe by not seeking her or another and just being celibate and God has given me grace. But something in me of course longs for woman, we are hardwired that way emotionally as well as or even more than physically. Puzzled in California.
i dont go to my pastor with this question because im afraid he might say go ahead and marry and then when i die i find out i committed adultery. thats what scares me. Any help u can give i would appreciate. Peterpan

 

[peterpan]

i think the dude is splitting hairs so he can keep lusting and not feel guilty but it wont work if he has God living inside him because God will not let him at rest about it. and gopd put u into his life thank God.

 

[El_Raton]

I appreciate the effort, but it does not directly respond to my inquiry. This is what I am asking: Does Adultery include what this homiletic statement says: "Adultery is not just about sex. It is about putting others and things before the one we are committed to in life. Essentially it is a violation of a vow made to God and to a husband or wife.". Is there someone on the authoritative staff that will respond to this homiletic quotation. Is Adultery more than sex? Does it include ignoring one’s spouse by being overly involved in hunting or bowline to cite just some activity outside of sex. Please respond to my question.

 

[Shlomey]

According to St. Don Bosco, masturbation, entertaining of lustful thoughts, fornication, etc. - even amongst unmarried persons - would be defined as adultery. And it seems to have been understood that way in the past also.

Otherwise the sin of masturbation would not even be a breaking of one of the big 10, no?

BUT:

The Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh or Christian Old Testament) prohibits adultery in the seventh of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14). It should be noted though that during biblical times marriage was seen as a property transaction and the definition of adultery was quite narrow. During biblical times adultery was defined as a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. The defintion did not, however, forbid a married man from having sex with a woman other than his wife provided she was was not married to someone else. [18] Today adultery is defined by culture and law which defines it as having sex outside of the marriage without the others knowledge or consent.[19]

Deuteronomy 22:24 defines adultery as sexual relations between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Both are guilty (unless the woman has cried out), if she has not, the penalty is death:

you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.[20]
As you can see, they are both to be put to death. Unless the woman has cried out for help. A consequence is that, under biblical law, sexual relations by an unmarried woman does not lead to adultery, whether the man is married or not.

These provisions are consistent with the provisions covering the practice of polygyny. It also fits with the prohibition of polyandry, as a woman cannot be married to more than one man without committing adultery. It has been suggested that the reasoning of these rules is to ensure that a child’s paternity is always known, and not in doubt.

CCC:

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."122 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.123

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

So if you violate the purpose of human sexuality, you violate the 6the commandment.

but then:

2380** Adultery refers to marital infidelity**. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.170 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.171 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.172

 

[Shlomey]

Regarding the 10th commandment:

THE TENTH (NINTH) COMMANDMENT: “Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife.”

St. John says in his first Epistle that “all that is in the world is the
concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of
life.”[1] Now, all that is desirable is included in these three, two of which
are forbidden by the precept: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.”[2]
Here “house,” signifying height, refers to avarice, for “glory and wealth
shall be in his house.”[3] This means that he who desires the house, desires
honors and riches. And thus after the precept forbidding desire for the
house of one’s neighbor comes the Commandment prohibiting concupiscence of
the flesh: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”[4]

Because of the corruption which resulted from the Fall, none has been free
from concupiscence except Christ and the glorious Virgin. And wherever
there is concupiscence, there is either venial or mortal sin, provided that
it is allowed to dominate the reason.[5] Hence the precept is not, let sin
not be; for it is written: “I know that there dwelleth not in me [that is
to say, in my flesh] that which is good.”[6]

First of all, sin rules in the flesh when, by giving consent to it,
concupiscence reigns in the heart. And, therefore, St. Paul adds “so as to
obey the lusts thereof” to the words: “Let not sin reign in your mortal
body.”[7] Accordingly the Lord says: “Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust
after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”[8] For
with God the intention is taken for the act.

Secondly, sin rules in the flesh when the concupiscence of our heart is
expressed in words: “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh.”[9] And again: “Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth.”[10]
Therefore, one is not without sin who composes frivolous songs. Even the
philosophers so thought, and poets who wrote amatory verses were sent into
exile. Lastly, sin rules in the flesh when at the behest of desire the
members are made to serve iniquity: “As you have yielded your members to
serve uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity.”[11] These, therefore, are the
progressive steps of concupiscence.

WAYS TO OVERCOME CONCUPISCENCE

We must realize that the avoidance of concupiscence demands much labor, for
it is based on something within us. It is as hard as trying to capture an
enemy in one’s own household. However, this desire can be overcome in four
ways.

Firstly, by fleeing the external occasions such as, for instance, bad
company; and in fact whatever may be an occasion for this sin: “Gaze not
upon a maiden lest her beauty be a stumbling-block to thee. . . . Look not
around about thee in the ways of the city, nor wander up and down in the
streets thereof. Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not
about upon another’s beauty. For many have perished by the beauty of a
woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire.”[12] And again: “Can a man
hide fire in his bosom, and his garments not burn?”[13] And thus Lot was
commanded to flee, “neither stay thou in all the country about.”[14]

The second way is by not giving an opening to thoughts which of themselves
are the occasion of lustful desires. And this must be done by mortification
of the flesh: “I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection.”[15] The
third way is perseverance in prayer: “Unless the Lord build the house, they
labor in vain who build it.”[16] And also: “I knew that I could not otherwise
be continent, except God gave it.”[17] Again: “This kind is not cast out save
by prayer and fasting.”[18] All this is not unlike to a fight between two
persons, one of whom you desire to win, the other to lose. You must sustain
the one and withdraw all support from the other. So also between the spirit
and the flesh there is a continual combat. Now, if you wish the spirit to
win, you must assist it by prayer, and likewise you must resist the flesh
by such means as fasting; for by fasting the flesh is weakened.

The fourth way is to keep oneself busy with wholesome occupations:
“Idleness hath taught much evil.”[19] Again: “This was the iniquity of Sodom
thy sister, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of
her.”[20] St. Jerome says: “Be always busy in doing something good, so that
the devil may find you ever occupied.” Now, study of the Scriptures is the
best of all occupations, as St. Jerome tells us: “Love to study the
Scriptures and you will not love the vices of the flesh.”[21]

ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/TA-CAT-2.TXT

 

[chevalier]

Good response, but does not answer my question. Please look at it again and then let me know if it does nor does not limit its scope to sex.

And what does that have to do with Matthew 5:28? Or what are you actually asking?

 

[El_Raton]

This is what I am asking: Does Adultery include what this homiletic statement says: “Adultery is not just about sex. It is about putting others and things before the one we are committed to in life. Essentially it is a violation of a vow made to God and to a husband or wife.”. I need to know if this statement expresses Church doctrine on adultery.

 

[chevalier]

This is what I am asking: Does Adultery include what this homiletic statement says: “Adultery is not just about sex. It is about putting others and things before the one we are committed to in life. Essentially it is a violation of a vow made to God and to a husband or wife.”. I need to know if this statement expresses Church doctrine on adultery.

And what does that have to do with Matthew 5:28?

Coveting a spouse for reasons other than sexual is coveting, but betrayal other than in sexual ways is hard for me to imagine as adultery. It might be a violation of the 6th rather than only the 4th, but I have some difficulty applying the term “adultery” to it.

One may equate sexual violations with other violations but one shouldn’t go out of his way to sexualise them.

 

[Inity]

I’m a topic starter, and my original question was related to Matthew 5:28. My friend tried to prove me that because “adultery” only applies to married persons, Matthew 5:28 doesn’t apply to unmarried man lusting for unmarried woman. His logic was weird for me, and I asked for clearance.

El Raton joined the topic later and added his (her?) own question about general understanding of “adultery”.

 

[swisscakerolls]

It does sound like a word game to me. I think in this case, a word game works both ways though (this may not be the BEST argument, but it could make for an interesting discussion).

My English Catholic Bible says “…everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.”

So, one way that a person can commit adultery is by looking lustfully at a woman. EVERYONE who lusts commits adultery, whether the luster is married or not.

An interpretation such as your friends invites too many problems to accept. Such an argument suggests to me that a woman could look with lust after a man without committing adultery, because Matthew 5:80 only mentions women. So, does a woman commit adultery when she looks at a woman with lust, but not a man? Can a man look at a man with lust, but not a woman?

I highly doubt that is what Jesus was trying to say. I think he was trying to emphasize how destructive lust is for all people, not just married men, by saying that one who lusts commits adultery regardless of marital status.

Anything else sounds too much like a forced loophole to me.

Thinking more broadly, one could also argue that lust denigrates a man’s respect for women, and is therefore implicitly forbidden by Jesus’ second greatest commandment, “love your neighbor as yourself.”

I’m pretty sure that Church tradition speaks strongly on the subject as well, even if Matthew 5:28 wasn’t taking about unmarried lust per se.

 

[tvdxer]

My guess is Matthew 5:28 can be interpreted to mean that men who are married commit adultery in their hearts when they lust over a woman, while unmarried men commit fornication in their hearts when they lust over an (unmarried) woman. This seems to be the most consistent with moral theology.