What exactly is Lust?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christiano77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edward_H said:
I am not sure I understand the full context for what the bishop said or thought he was saying. Maybe the bishop never had a problem with lust.
Click to expand...
I believe he was just asked plain and simple if it was a sin to look up bikini models and he gave his answer. As to what he thought he was saying, only he would know that, but I have wondered that myself. With regards to him perhaps never having a problem with lust, I think it might be safe to assume that a bishop would know a thing or two about lust, even if he himself might not have issues with it. Also I think his diocese has beaches within it, so one could take that into consideration when pondering his line of thinking.
Edward_H said:
Looking through bikini magazines for the pleasure of it serves no one but you.
Click to expand...
I mean to include all images that feature attractive women, not just swimsuit magazines. They could be fully dressed.

An update on the Jimmy Akin article I referenced. I was reviewing it and noticed that it has been edited. Where it once said " and that the pleasure one finds in seeing her beauty and shape was not sinful to consent to…" has been changed to " and that the non-sexual pleasure one finds in seeing her beauty and shape was not sinful to consent to…". I think someone might have changed it because it might’ve been causing confusion or they made a mistake and corrected it, though I’m not sure what the new edit means either. That prompted me to look up the definition of sexual pleasure which is, according to CatholicReference.net:
The emotional satisfaction that arises from the movement of those organs and secretions that aid the act of procreation. This pleasure reaches its peak in a healthy man in the pleasure that accompanies the emission of seed, or in women and youths below the age of puberty in the diffusion of some secretion from the sexual glands. The Catholic Church holds that direct sexual pleasure outside marriage is gravely sinful and never admits of slight matter; indirect sexual pleasure may be either sinful or no sin at all. Direct sexual pleasure is desired and enjoyed in itself and is the privilege only of married partners between themselves. It is forbidden to the unmarried because such conduct would be contrary to the virtue of chastity. Indirect sexual pleasure is not sought for itself but arises from some other action that is performed for a good reason. If there is such a reason, the actions are not sinful, provided a person neither intends the sexual pleasure nor consents to it if spontaneously aroused.
Click to expand...
This seems to say, at least to me, that sexual pleasure is active stimulation of the sexual organs, such as masturbation and having sexual intercourse. It could also possibly include erections. Though I’m not sure how this definition carries over into how one can look at women.
Mathew 5:28 But I say to you, that anyone who will have looked at a woman, so as to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this means anyone who looks at a woman with the intent to either look at her so as to either plan to or entertain ideas of having sexual relations with her or to use her as “material” to “satisfy” himself with.

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. 🙂
 
Christiano77 said:
Hmm, the bishop’s quote that I put in my original post seems to say that is okay. He was asked if it was a sin to look up bikini models and he responded by saying it wasn’t a sin to look at them. But I understand what you’re trying to say. It would be best to avoid such images because they might cause you to sin, but that might depend on the individual and their vulnerability to these kinds of images.

From Most Rev Michael E Putney Bishop of Townsville, whom I quoted earlier:

I’ve also read an article elsewhere that might imply that erections are okay to have, as long as you don’t will, desire, or enjoy them.

Here’s the article I mentioned: ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm
Click to expand...
Under that logic, sex is okay as long as you don’t want or enjoy it:rolleyes:
 
The heart of it is:
Do you look at someone so as to appropriate their beauty for your own use (utilitarianism).
It is natural for us to take notice and take simple pleasure in seeing a beautiful woman. We can them smile at the woman or engage her in a normal conversation which is proper to the circumstances and involves her in a normal way that benefits both.
But, do you take the pleaure and turn it into selfish thoughts? Do you imagine the woman as she is not, in other words, do you imagine her in your bed or undressed before you? That is appropriating someone and turning them into a something that does not belong to you.
Or worse, do you allow the feelings of pleaure to lead to an adulterous invitation of some kind? Or allow the feelings to lead you into pornography or maasturbation when you get home? That is using the God-given pleasure for your own use.
Sex belongs in a spousal relationship that respects the human dignity of both people.
That being said, having stray thoughts of lust is not unusual, and is not necessarily mortal sin. The question is, how do you act on them.
We can’t let fear of sin ruin our perception of beauty.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Under that logic, sex is okay as long as you don’t want or enjoy it:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That doesn’t remotely follow:
Having an erection is not having sex. An erection sometimes just happens. It is not willed or necessarily enjoyed. In fact it can’t be willed, ask anyone with ED how difficult that is.
 
A_Augustinus said:
Good points, Colorad007. There are mixed messages out there about how to deal with sexual attraction, and that can cause a lot of distress for scrupulous people. It raises questions like: Who’s right? How do I know what to do? How do I balance these conflicting ideas, etc.

It seems like the truth involves some combination of both ideas you mentioned. I think trying too hard to avoid sexual attraction is unwise, because it ultimately leads to a person feeling worn out and frustrated that they can’t even walk down a busy street without being “vigilant” about seeing an attractive girl (been there, done that). It’s easy to start seeing the attraction itself as a problem. This is definitely not the case. I firmly believe that God made our sexuality as part of his plan, and as such, he wants men and women to find each other attractive. That’s a very good thing.

At the same time, though, purposefully looking at the opposite sex to “appreciate beauty” can become selfish and lustful quickly, especially if it’s only a picture, rather than a real person standing in front of you. I definitely agree with you that it’s pretty absurd to compare admiring a beautiful woman to admiring a landscape or a glass vase, for example. We’re sexual beings. We’re meant to be attracted to the opposite sex. In a way, any man who can actually look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her in the same way as a sunset probably is imbalanced in some way. She’s a person, not scenery! :eek:

I think the bishop’s quote (referenced by the OP) probably should be read in this context. He’s saying that it’s part of God’s plan for a man to be sexually attracted to a woman, and the attraction is by no means sinful in itself.

I guess the main question is, where is the boundary? When does attraction lead into lust? Must it? Those who emphasize the idea of “sexual redemption” say that with God’s grace, we can experience attraction in a way that naturally leads to love, not lust. I think this is probably possible, but it takes a journey of discipline to get to that point. It’s important to be vigilant against the kinds of thoughts that degrade a person to a sex object, or something we can use for our own ends. It seems like that’s what the bishop is saying here:

Intellectually, the principle seems pretty clear, but in everyday life, it never seems so clear. That’s what’s so frustrating for a scrupulous mind like mine.
Click to expand...
Its worth noting that (in theory at least) Sharia based gender segregation operates on similar principals. But they solve the problem by making women stay indoors and/or completely cover up (placing all the responsibility and blame for men acting lustfully on women).

Showing that this scrupulous behavior can get very ridiculous (and nasty) very quickly, especially when applied to groups.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Under that logic, sex is okay as long as you don’t want or enjoy it:rolleyes:
clem456 said:
That doesn’t remotely follow:
Having an erection is not having sex. An erection sometimes just happens. It is not willed or necessarily enjoyed. In fact it can’t be willed, ask anyone with ED how difficult that is.
Click to expand...
I am not responsible for how Catholics have defined Lust:
newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

I merely point out how restrictive and unrealistic is it:shrug:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Under that logic, sex is okay as long as you don’t want or enjoy it:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Again, if you think this is what the Catholic Church holds you are gravely mistaken.

I would also like to point out that it is possible to talk about sexual desire and its validity outside of marriage in a way that is understood as being seperate from sexual desire within marriage. So your leap from one person’s take on ercetions outside marriage to a completely universal statement doesn’t necessarily follow.

Even outside marriage, though, I must say that I do not see how these desires are in themselves sinful, but rather they are easily distorted into sinful desires so people often advise to avoid the desires themselves entirely. I think that is also the understanding of others on this thread and the question is at what point do these desires turn into something sinful.
 
I will go by Matthew Kelley’s quote: “God made us to love people and use things - too often we use people and love things.”
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Under that logic, sex is okay as long as you don’t want or enjoy it:rolleyes:

I am not responsible for how Catholics have defined Lust:
newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

I merely point out how restrictive and unrealistic is it:shrug:
Click to expand...
If you want to know how the Catholic Church defines Lust you should look at the Catechism.
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.
Click to expand...
Now, this nowhere says anything about sexual desire or pleasure being bad in and of itself. Instead it says that it is the disordered or inordinate desire/pleasure which is problematic. That implies that normal, natural, sexual desire and pleasure are good and healthy. I really fail to see how this is in any way unrealistic or overly restrictive. I assume that you also would admit that someones sexual desire and pleasure can be disordered, such as someone who goes around raping women. Perhaps you will disagree on the inordinate part, but the key here is to realize that what the Church means by inordinate is not set nearly as low as you seem to think by your claims that the Church sees sexual pleasure as sinful. I’m sorry, but you are just plain wrong in your accusations of the Church’s teachings.
 
Also, AA, look at this, also from the CCC
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.
Click to expand...
 
Hey guys, it looks like I may have found an answer to my question regarding looking at women.

Taken from the Archdiocese of Washington’s blog website, referencing Matthew 5: 27-30:
In understanding this passage we need to begin with what it means to look at someone with lust. While there is some debate as to its exact meaning we ought to exclude a few things from it. First it is not wrong or lustful to experience some one as being attractive. It is a normal thing for a man to see beauty in a woman, or a woman to find a man handsome. This is not lust, it is a God-given appreciation for beauty and part of the essential attraction God himself has given to draw men and women to each other in marriage and ultimately to procreation. Secondly, it can be a rather common occurrence that sexual thoughts occur in the mind about someone we find attractive. This is usually a spontaneous thought and may not be willed at all. It just occurs and we usually dismiss it as inappropriate. This too is usually excluded from the notion of lustful thinking because it is not willed and hence is not a sin, if it is not entertained.
Click to expand...
But where lust begins is when we begin to fanaticize sexually about someone in a way that is willful. We have these thoughts and not only accept them but also entertain and dwell on them. This is where looking lustfully begins. Now this look may be of a person right before us or it may be the inward look of the imagination of some one we know or have imagined. This is what makes masturbation sinful for it clearly involves fantasizing about sexual activity about some one not our spouse. It is a a form of lustful looking or lustful thinking. To the degree that it is connected to pornography, its sinfulness is increased. So the essential wrongness of masturbation is the lustful thoughts that accompany it.
Click to expand...
Here’s a link to the website: blog.adw.org/tag/sexuality/

Press F3 or Ctrl+F and type in the word “lustfully” in the search box that appears to find the quoted passages above quickly.
 
That seems like a good delineation of lust to me. I would quibble with the last couple sentences on masturbation, though. The writer seems to be saying that the reason masturbation is sinful is the lustful fantasies people entertain during masturbation. My understanding of church teaching is that masturbation is wrong by its very nature, because it removes sex from the context of marriage. I went to the web page, and later on, the writer directly quotes the Catechism, where it teaches this fact. Not sure why the writer suggests otherwise in the paragraph you quoted.

In any event, the definition of lust given in this text seems right to me. I’ve been thinking about this over the past few days, and I wonder if part of the lack of clarity comes from differences in the way lust is explained. The Catechism defines lust as the “disordered” desire for “inordinate” sexual pleasure. This seems to define it fairly narrowly in terms of an explicit desire to commit fornication or some other immoral sexual act. Then again, when I hear people talk about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, they place lust in the context of respect and love for others. This tends to lead to a definition of lust as any sexual thought that disrespects the dignity and value of another person, or treats them as something to be used, rather than a person to be loved. As much as I like this definition, and I think it really digs to the heart of the matter, I think it’s harder to apply in practical contexts.

I think the description you quoted kind of helps to bridge the two definitions in a way that’s practical. Any thoughts?
 
Christiano77 said:
Hey guys, it looks like I may have found an answer to my question regarding looking at women.

Taken from the Archdiocese of Washington’s blog website, referencing Matthew 5: 27-30:

Here’s a link to the website: blog.adw.org/tag/sexuality/

Press F3 or Ctrl+F and type in the word “lustfully” in the search box that appears to find the quoted passages above quickly.
Click to expand...
That’s a great quote, the only thing that I think it’s missing is an explanation of the difference between lust and healthy sexual thought between married couples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top