We need to define "lust" once and for all

[Jonatello]

The actual english word “lust” will probably continue to evolve and change with the rest of the language, but for the sake of Catholic teaching, when “lust” is mentioned in the context of our faith, we need to nail down a definition because I’m constantly hearing/reading slight differences from Catholic sources, and those slight differences are crucial, and this concludes my introductory run-on sentence.

probably the most common distinction i read/hear from fellow Catholics is:
Lust = yearning for someone’s body for your own pleasure.
Good sexual desire = yearning to give your body for the other person’s pleasure.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would there be any value in giving your body for the other person’s pleasure if they are forbidden to want your body for their pleasure?

It seems to me that hunger for the other person’s body for your own pleasure is always a significant factor in healthy normal sexual desire. Why is that the definition of lust?

And if your sole interest is to give yourself for the other person’s pleasure, purely without interest in your own pleasure, that would be very dry, uninspiring and possibly a sign of a deeper problem.

If your desire, on the other hand, is to take pleasure only in their pleasure (not their body), you are still partly pleasuring them for your own pleasure. Not only that, but you’re taking pleasure in the corruption of their soul, because you’re trying to have them take pleasure with your body.

So then another popular definition of lust is “raw physical desire without love”. Love, however, is a matter of circumstance (you have met and fallen in love with someone), while raw physical desire is a matter of nature (if you are a human with healthy instincts, you will have this desire regardless of whether you’ve met and fallen in love with someone).
:
Now, acting on this type of desire can be considered morally hazardous to any of us who believe love should be present in the bedroom, but the term “lust” is not usually used as a synonym for the actual sex act, but rather the sentiment behind it.

Others say “lust is when that normal physical sexual desire goes to the extreme point of eliminating respect for the actual human on the other end of that desire”, and to me this seems to be a much more sound definition of “lust” if “lust = sin”. Sometimes, however, this can be a result of a physical, chemical, or psychological disorder.

Thoughts?

 

[davidv]

The actual english word “lust” will probably continue to evolve and change with the rest of the language, but for the sake of Catholic teaching, when “lust” is mentioned in the context of our faith, we need to nail down a definition because I’m constantly hearing/reading slight differences from Catholic sources, and those slight differences are crucial, and this concludes my introductory run-on sentence.

probably the most common distinction i read/hear from fellow Catholics is:
Lust = yearning for someone’s body for your own pleasure.
Good sexual desire = yearning to give your body for the other person’s pleasure.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would there be any value in giving your body for the other person’s pleasure if they are forbidden to want your body for their pleasure?

It seems to me that hunger for the other person’s body for your own pleasure is always a significant factor in healthy normal sexual desire. Why is that the definition of lust?

And if your sole interest is to give yourself for the other person’s pleasure, purely without interest in your own pleasure, that would be very dry, uninspiring and possibly a sign of a deeper problem.

If your desire, on the other hand, is to take pleasure only in their pleasure (not their body), you are still partly pleasuring them for your own pleasure. Not only that, but you’re taking pleasure in the corruption of their soul, because you’re trying to have them take pleasure with your body.

So then another popular definition of lust is “raw physical desire without love”. Love, however, is a matter of circumstance (you have met and fallen in love with someone), while raw physical desire is a matter of nature (if you are a human with healthy instincts, you will have this desire regardless of whether you’ve met and fallen in love with someone).
:
Now, acting on this type of desire can be considered morally hazardous to any of us who believe love should be present in the bedroom, but the term “lust” is not usually used as a synonym for the actual sex act, but rather the sentiment behind it.

Others say “lust is when that normal physical sexual desire goes to the extreme point of eliminating respect for the actual human on the other end of that desire”, and to me this seems to be a much more sound definition of “lust” if “lust = sin”. Sometimes, however, this can be a result of a physical, chemical, or psychological disorder.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are the the Catholics you have spoken to may not have consulted the Catechism. Lust is define there:

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.

 

[Jonatello]

My thoughts are the the Catholics you have spoken to may not have consulted the Catechism. Lust is define there:

2351 *Lust *

i understand, but there are various ways people interpret that, which create all the various perspectives i mentioned in the OP. what constitutes a desire isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes? what constitutes unitive? does “and” mean “both” or “either”? if “and” in fact does mean “and” and does not mean “or” then sex outside of procreative potential is sinful? and/or is sex outside of the goal of procreation sinful? it’s very easy to read the Catechism’s english definition as a definition of the natural sexual instinct given to all of God’s creatures, which in fact does exist as a separate thought/feeling from thoughts of procreation.

 

[Geremia]

Read entry on lustCatholic Encyclopedia, as well as these articles from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiæ: contrary vice [of chastity] which is lust (153). The parts of lust (154). These should answer all your questions.

 

[Geremia]

Also, read this, addressing the question of " can be a sin?"

The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.

Also, this passage lists the various species of lust:

As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

 

[shaky]

Also, read this, addressing the question of " can be a sin?"Also, this passage lists the various species of lust:

St. Thomas Aquina’s Views On married people for the Reason of haveing Sex Just to have a baby Does seem extreme. That is Just his point of View.
{I Corinthians 7:5} Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent. Its a marital Right
To have Sex to fulfill each other Sex drive Regardless of making a baby. I don’t think God has got anything Against a married couple who find Joy in each other sexually.
Lust in a marriage a Inordinate desire: Its like haveing to much Sex. There is nothing more worst for a man or woman if their partner wants sex 3 times a day and you only want it a few times a week. Right sexual desire has to be in moderation and a couple should work that out with each other.

 

[Jonatello]

Read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on lust, as well as these articles from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiæ: contrary vice [of chastity] which is lust (153). The parts of lust (154). These should answer all your questions.

Thank you Geremia.

Now I must say that I really believe there has got to be a more concise way to define “lust” than a series of lengthy esoteric citations tangled up in theological legalese, but I have tried to make what I can of these links, because they are rich.

I’ll try to address each link one by one…

Catholic Encyclopedia entry ( newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm ):

There are 3 statements on this page which come the closest to defining the sin of lust, but they don’t seem to come very close at all to defining much of anything:

Lust is the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

:
Ok, sure. It is a sound definition in the most vague way (“lust is bad sexual desire”), but it is not very informative (“what is bad sexual desire?”).

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse.

:
The suspense is killing me. Lust is wrong because it is against the law.

The reason is obvious. The pleasure which this vice has as its object is at once so attractive and connatural to human nature as to whet keenly a man’s desire, and so lead him into the commission of many other disorders in the pursuit of it.

:
If that was supposed to be obvious, it completely went over my understanding of reality. Lust is bad because the pleasure of sex is so good it leads man to do bad things in pursuit of it. Flat out: desiring pleasure = motive to sin = bad. It refutes the very possibility of a distinction between good sexual desire and bad sexual desire, because desire for pleasure leads a man to lie, steal, or kill for it.

So, to sum up, this page says “lust is inordinate sexual desire, which is inordinate because it’s unlawful, and it’s unlawful because it’s so good you’ll sin for it.”

clarity is a virtue.

153 ( newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm ) :

the way i’m interpreting this so far:

Article 1: “Lust is not necessarily the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation, but usually is.”

Article 2: “Even though desiring pleasure is sinful, enjoying pleasure is not.”

Article 3: “The reason lust is without doubt a sin, is because it exceeds the reasonable purpose of ejaculation?”

Article 4: “Sexual desire leads man to sin in other ways, making lust a capital vice.”

Article 5 sent me to the page about concupiscence:

God lovingly gave man a sensual desire for good and a rational desire for good. Fulfillment of both was God’s desire for man, and they worked in harmony for God’s glory. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, 99.99999999999999999% of humanity must now reject the former in order to fulfill the latter, so one day we can all live happily ever after in a paradise where the former no longer exists.

I have to go for now, but I still have 154 up in my browser, and I will read that next.

 

[davidv]

i understand, but there are various ways people interpret that, which create all the various perspectives i mentioned in the OP.

Well, if you want everyone to have their own opinion on what lust means, how could a new definition make things any better. No matter what definition is proposed there will multiple understandings. Would you be any further ahead than now? I don’t think so.

what constitutes a desire isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes?

In order to understand this one needs to understand what unitive and procreative mean. Unitive is the marital bond between husband and wife. Procreative means that the act is order toward the creation of new life.

what constitutes unitive?

That which joins husband and wife.

does “and” mean “both” or “either”?

Both

if “and” in fact does mean “and” and does not mean “or” then sex outside of procreative potential is sinful?

Yes, which why artifical birth control is immoral.

and/or is sex outside of the goal of procreation sinful?

Yes.

it’s very easy to read the Catechism’s english definition as a definition of the natural sexual instinct given to all of God’s creatures, which in fact does exist as a separate thought/feeling from thoughts of procreation.

How so? The Church says that natural action of sex are rightly ordered to unite the spouses and create new life.

 

[shaky]

Well, if you want everyone to have their own opinion on what lust means, how could a new definition make things any better. No matter what definition is proposed there will multiple understandings. Would you be any further ahead than now? I don’t think so.

In order to understand this one needs to understand what unitive and procreative mean. Unitive is the marital bond between husband and wife. Procreative means that the act is order toward the creation of new life.

That which joins husband and wife.

Both

Yes, which why artifical birth control is immoral.

Yes.

How so? The Church says that natural action of sex are rightly ordered to unite the spouses and create new life.

So what about Natural birth control that is taking place through circumstances. First of all you have the menopause in women. This stops her producing life. Now the couple know this. It is Sin for them to have Sex.
Also a soon as your wife becomes 2 weeks pregnant. There in no chance of of her getting pregnant again until the baby is born 9 months later. So sex is out all this time
Also there are sometimes other medical reasons why one or both partners can’t produce children.

Animals Just copulate for a few minutes during there breeding period. Does God want to reduce us down to have Sex Just like Animals

Its different with humans. They kiss fondle and have foreplay taking there time. Just doing that brings allot of pleasure. besides Just rushing in for a Orgasm.
Also with women it is not easy to achieve orgasm by Just copulation. Now is that not depriving her and not satisfying her natural sex drive.

I have only understood the definition of Lust through the dictionary to keep things in there proper context. why do people need to try and change and modify the word?
So exactly how and when was the churches definition of lust in marriage came about?

 

[Geremia]

St. Thomas Aquina’s Views On married people for the Reason of haveing Sex Just to have a baby Does seem extreme.

That procreation is the primary end of the marriage act? That has always been the Catholic teaching; it is not “extreme.”

That is Just his point of View.

No, e.g.:

Code of Canon Law - “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

and

Castii Connubii: For in matrimony as well as in the use of the such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

{I Corinthians 7:5} Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent. Its a marital Right
To have Sex to fulfill each other Sex drive Regardless of making a baby.

No, this is simply untrue. Look at what happened to Onan for contracepting (“spilling his seed;” viz., abusing Thamar, his sister-in-law, for sexual gratification: lust): God punished him with death![bibledrb]Genesis 38:8-10[/bibledrb]

I don’t think God has got anything Against a married couple who find Joy in each other sexually.
Lust in a marriage a Inordinate desire: Its like haveing to much Sex. There is nothing more worst for a man or woman if their partner wants sex 3 times a day and you only want it a few times a week. Right sexual desire has to be in moderation and a couple should work that out with each other.

 

[davidv]

So what about Natural birth control that is taking place through circumstances. First of all you have the menopause in women. This stops her producing life. Now the couple know this. It is Sin for them to have Sex.
Also a soon as your wife becomes 2 weeks pregnant. There in no chance of of her getting pregnant again until the baby is born 9 months later. So sex is out all this time
Also there are sometimes other medical reasons why one or both partners can’t produce children.

Why do you think any of these circumstance make the marital act non-procreative? What do you think “procreative” means?

Animals Just copulate for a few minutes during there breeding period. Does God want to reduce us down to have Sex Just like Animals

What does what animals do have to do with what human sexuality is about?

Its different with humans. They kiss fondle and have foreplay taking there time. Just doing that brings allot of pleasure. besides Just rushing in for a Orgasm.
Also with women it is not easy to achieve orgasm by Just copulation. Now is that not depriving her and not satisfying her natural sex drive.

I have only understood the definition of Lust through the dictionary to keep things in there proper context. why do people need to try and change and modify the word?

Lust has multiple meanings. When speaking of Church teaching it has a very specific meaning. It is all a matter of context.

So exactly how and when was the churches definition of lust in marriage came about?

I don’t know.

 

[Debora123]

Lust = using another person for your own gratification without caring about them as human beings.

That’s why porn is such a perfect example of lust. You don’t know those women, you don’t care about them or who they are, you only use them for looking at their pictures and pleasuring yourself.

I have SO often seen people use the word “lust” incorrectly on this forum.

Lust IS NOT sexual attraction.
Lust IS NOT catching glimpse of a pretty girl walking by and momentarily feeling aroused.
Lust IS NOT the natural desire to have sex with someone you know and care about and are attracted to.
Lust IS NOT enjoying sex with your wife and making sure she is enjoying it too.

Those are all natural feelings, and they are a good thing.

 

[Debora123]

“Lust does not mean sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is normal. It’s the way God made us. Lust means the willful desire to use someone - in this case, to use someone’s body - for our own purpose or our own pleasure alone. It forgets that each person was created in the image and likeness of God and that God wants only what is best for that person.”

-Mary Beth Bonacci, “We’re on a Mission from God”
*
“Lust does not mean sexual attraction. Attraction is a good thing. Lust means reducing the whole person to sex ALONE. Lust is the will to USE another person - to see that person as merely an object of personal, sexual satisfaction.”*

-Mary Beth Bonacci, “Real Love”

Hope that helps!

 

[shaky]

That procreation is the primary end of the marriage act? That has always been the Catholic teaching; it is not "extreme."No, e.g.:andNo, this is simply untrue. Look at what happened to Onan for contracepting (“spilling his seed;” viz., abusing Thamar, his sister-in-law, for sexual gratification: lust): God punished him with death![bibledrb]Genesis 38:8-10[/bibledrb]

I agree it is perfectly right when 2 people get married they should have children. It would be wrong if one partner wants children and the other partner does not want children.
God did punish Onan for contraception to the point of not haveing children at all by wasting his seed every time.
But once your wife pregnant and you can know that in the first 2 weeks. every seed that you produce during her 9 month pregnancy will be wasted because she cant get pregnant again while she is pregnant. Also when your wife reaches menopause. Every seed produced after that will be wasted. So you cant count this type of wasted seed during sex as lust.

 

[Debora123]

I agree it is perfectly right when 2 people get married they should have children. It would be wrong if one partner wants children and the other partner does not want children.
God did punish Onan for contraception to the point of not haveing children at all by wasting his seed every time.
But once your wife pregnant and you can know that in the first 2 weeks. every seed that you produce during her 9 month pregnancy will be wasted because she cant get pregnant again while she is pregnant. Also when your wife reaches menopause. Every seed produced after that will be wasted. So you cant count this type of wasted seed during sex as lust.

…Same with using NFP and having sex during infertile days. The male body produces lots and LOTS of “seeds,” so it’s not like you’re wasting something that cannot be replaced. If a healthy young man spends a really really long time without ejaculating, the seeds will come out one way or another… usually through wet dreams.

 

[fbl9]

I agree it is perfectly right when 2 people get married they should have children. It would be wrong if one partner wants children and the other partner does not want children.
God did punish Onan for contraception to the point of not haveing children at all by wasting his seed every time.
But once your wife pregnant and you can know that in the first 2 weeks. every seed that you produce during her 9 month pregnancy will be wasted because she cant get pregnant again while she is pregnant. Also when your wife reaches menopause. Every seed produced after that will be wasted. So you cant count this type of wasted seed during sex as lust.

When you seed on a highway you have wasted the seed, now if you seed in the field regardless if it grows or not you have not wasted your seed. Because you planted it where it ought to be planted.