When is sexual attraction "wrong"

[Rau]

No, it means I have an otherwise normal sex drive for someone of my age and gender , but I despise it. I tolerate it because I cannot get rid of it. It’s kind of like the appendix. It’s not really doing anything. And if it gets infected, you can die.

It’s not that I don’t trust God’s mercy (that is assuming his mercy, not presuming). Presuming God’s mercy I was taught means that one commits an act while saying “I can just go to confession to be forgiven.” And that’s horribly, terribly, wrong. I do not expect control within marriage to be a problem. It is the pre-marriage time that concerns me at this time. Maybe I’m guessing it’ll be the whole “one wants what one cannot have” phenomenon, but I expect control will be much, much easier in marriage for me.

I don’t agree that those are God’s intention. Marriage is unitive and procreative. God intends eros as it is the vehicle of orgasm, and by extension, procreation. Eros for the sake of eros is an abomination. Agape is the supreme example of love, and unfortunately it’s not done within most marriages either. If you can think of a case where you wouldn’t love your spouse, then you are not “doing” agape. (couldn’t think of a better word) Those are conditions, and make their love incapable of being unconditional.

As far as consummation, that seals the marriage, right? Hence, it is unitive in nature. Consummating a marriage and using sex to have children satisfies all that is required sexually in a marriage. Doing it for recreation is lust. I don’t see how it could be anything else. If kid’s aren’t the primary goal, don’t waste your time. I imagine most couples have this kind of sex, since it’s more preferable. Sex for fun? That’s lust. Or at the very minimum, a misuse of it. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit.

I’ve already given up expecting meet someone born in the last hundred years who shares my opinion of sexuality who is A. Catholic, B. single, C. interested in me, and D. on a path that may cross with me. (and E. who I will ever be capable of asking out because I wouldn’t be able to do it without some guilt, at any rate)

…My specific and strongest fear is that I will simply have premarital sex (at her prompting of course- I’m far too reserved to ever ask something that taboo. I hate asking people over to watch movies.) I would be ashamed to tell my wife she was not my “first.” I would be even more ashamed if I married the same girl I committed fornication with.

Marriage itself isn’t a near occasion of sin, but the sex within may be unless it follows correct moral guidelines. I thought the two were separate. (You can be married without sex, right?)

May I first pick you up on the question of God’s mercy, as I think you mis-represent the situation. To live your life with the earnest desire not to sin, but to take comfort in the availability of God’s mercy, is not wrong. It is what Jesus exhorted us to do! What is wrong is the self-delusion that says “I’m OK with sinning 'cause I can just go to confession later, so I’m going to sin”. Now I think we are clear that you are not advocating the latter. For you to go on a date with a woman, is not to advocate the latter.

RK, you said to Coptic that you’d like to become “less scrupulous” regarding sexual matters. Reading your responses, I’m not sure I believe that. I’m not seeing in your responses **any **openness to what we’re saying to you. Rather, you just restate the outlooks that you have expressed in this thread and others.

I assume you acknowledge that your views on sex and marriage are not based on Church teachings on that subject, and they are in fact your own creation? I’m not saying your views are sinful (frankly, I don’t know), but I am saying that they do not find support in Church teachings. For example, we have pointed you to the Catechism definition of Lust, but you consistently define events not meeting that definition as Lust. You state that sex in marriage, other than for specific purposes (consummation, conception) - is recreation and Lust. I hope you accept that that is your opinion, not Church teaching? Eg, I can offer you some thoughts from the US Catholic Bishops Conference:

"The Catholic Church, in its official teaching, has always taken a positive view of sexuality in marriage. Marital intercourse, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is “noble and honorable,” established by God so that “spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.” (#2362). The Church’s positive understanding of sexuality is rooted in the teachings of Jesus that were, in part, drawn from the wisdom of the Old Testament. Both the Book of Genesis and the Song of Songs describe the basic goodness of sexual love in marriage.

A link to the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I think it is clearly established throughout this thread that your outlook is not arrived at from a study of Church teaching (or an interpretation of it), but rather you simply hold some personal views which are not Catholic in nature, and which you place above Church teaching in their persuasiveness. On this basis - it maybe this forum is not the best venue in which to seek counsel.

 

[rkwittem]

May I first pick you up on the question of God’s mercy, as I think you mis-represent the situation. To live your life with the earnest desire not to sin, but to take comfort in the availability of God’s mercy, is not wrong. It is what Jesus exhorted us to do! What is wrong is the self-delusion that says “I’m OK with sinning 'cause I can just go to confession later, so I’m going to sin”. Now I think we are clear that you are not advocating the latter. For you to go on a date with a woman, is not to advocate the latter.

RK, you said to Coptic that you’d like to become “less scrupulous” regarding sexual matters. Reading your responses, I’m not sure I believe that. I’m not seeing in your responses **any **openness to what we’re saying to you. Rather, you just restate the outlooks that you have expressed in this thread and others.

I’d like to, but I’m afraid it’s easier said than done. I’m far too afraid of committing sexual sin. So much so that a cruel and cold view regarding my sexuality appears much, much safer. I’m too risk-averse in this regard not to be terrified of what might happen if I relaxed those standards.

*"The Catholic Church, in its official teaching, has always taken a positive view of sexuality in marriage. Marital intercourse, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is “noble and honorable,” established by God so that “spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.” (#2362). The Church’s positive understanding of sexuality is rooted in the teachings of Jesus that were, in part, drawn from the wisdom of the Old Testament. Both the Book of Genesis and the Song of Songs describe the basic goodness of sexual love in marriage.[/INDENT]
*

I’m well aware that these views are in fact much more stringent than anything the Church teaches.
Maybe it’s just me, but being “noble and honorable” and that spouses should enjoy sex physically does not sound like unitive & procreative at all. Not saying they’re incompatible, but one is clearly a much higher calling than the other. What is the end of recreational sex? It’s not done with children in mind, rather it seeks in the moment bodily pleasure. Even if it’s not lust, it can’t be entirely good either- how can it when it does not place the unitive and procreative effects of the conjugal act as the focus of the deed?

I think it is clearly established throughout this thread that your outlook is not arrived at from a study of Church teaching (or an interpretation of it), but rather you simply hold some personal views which are not Catholic in nature, and which you place above

Church teaching in their persuasiveness. On this basis - it maybe this forum is not the best venue in which to seek counsel.

Do you have another forum in mind? I certainly cannot talk to my parents about this- they didn’t know what to say, and I quite certain my mother thinks I’m way too hard on myself. Haven’t called a priest yet either. Most of the ones I knew well have be reassigned by the bishop over the last few years.

 

[Baelor]

No, it means I have an otherwise normal sex drive for someone of my age and gender , but I despise it. I tolerate it because I cannot get rid of it. It’s kind of like the appendix. It’s not really doing anything. And if it gets infected, you can die.

Please speak to a priest. We are supposed to rejoice and be happy about our sex drives because they are good and God-given. The fact that you do not is theologically problematic and a highway to a self-loathing that is immoral and will never cease.

As far as consummation, that seals the marriage, right? Hence, it is unitive in nature. Consummating a marriage and using sex to have children satisfies all that is required sexually in a marriage.

That is factually incorrect. Either spouse may request sex at any time. Providing sex is a marital obligation and (consistently) refusing to provide sex when the spouse requests it is sinful and a huge violation of marital responsibilities.

Doing it for recreation is lust.

No, because sex is an expression of love. If sex is not enjoyable and enjoyed, that is sad. The Catholic Church condemns contraception. It does not demand that the couple think only about children. It does not demand that the couple not find the experience extremely pleasurable. Should the greatest gift of love not be pleasurable?

I don’t see how it could be anything else. If kid’s aren’t the primary goal, don’t waste your time.

Kids are always to be considered a possible OUTCOME of sex. They are not required to be the sole or even primary GOAL of each instance. Please consider that the Church requires only “openness to life,” not anything more restrictive than that.

I imagine most couples have this kind of sex, since it’s more preferable. Sex for fun? That’s lust. Or at the very minimum, a misuse of it. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit.

Then you are in conflict with Church teaching and likely mentally unhealthy and should seek the counsel of a priest.

Marriage itself isn’t a near occasion of sin, but the sex within may be unless it follows correct moral guidelines. I thought the two were separate. (You can be married without sex, right?)

Josephite marriages are required to end if a spouse wants sex. Consummation of the marriage is very important.

 

[Baelor]

It’s not done with children in mind, rather it seeks in the moment bodily pleasure

We have that bodily pleasure for a reason. God does not make something so fundamental to human existence completely useless at the same time. Bodily pleasure is to be embraced, as the Church teaches, when it is used as an expression of love between married individuals.

We are not required to “have children in mind” during sex. We are required to be open to life. They are different.

Even if it’s not lust, it can’t be entirely good either- how can it when it does not place the unitive and procreative effects of the conjugal act as the focus of the deed?

I think I see the issue – you think that “unitive and procreative” involve mindsets. This is not the case:

Bodily pleasure aids in unity. The fact that sex feels good is not accident. It helps perpetuate the human race by drawing humans to the sexual act. The sexual act is unitive in that it brings the spouses together in an act of love.

Procreative is not a mindset; it is physical. If contraception is not used, the sexual act is procreative. It does not require the spouses to actively want a child to result from each sexual encounter.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

From the Catechism; I bolded a couple of things.

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."145 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. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

 

[Debora123]

Ugh, this is getting old. The OP just needs to seek some professional help for scrupulosity and a warped view of sexuality.

 

[Rau]

I’m well aware that these views are in fact much more **stringent **than anything the Church teaches.
Maybe it’s just me, but being “noble and honorable” and that spouses should enjoy sex physically does not sound like unitive & procreative at all. Not saying they’re incompatible, but one is clearly a much **higher calling **than the other. What is the end of recreational sex? It’s not done with children in mind, rather it seeks in the moment bodily pleasure. Even if it’s not lust, it can’t be entirely good either- how can it when it does not place the unitive and procreative effects of the conjugal act as the focus of the deed?

I think “stringent” is not the word for it - that would almost imply “superior” or “closer to ideal”. It’s not. It’s a “restrictive” view on the rightful use of your sexual faculties, and which is entirely of your own invention.

A “higher calling”? No, it’s not that - you simply choose to reject what God has given you, and to reject the applicable Church teaching, substituting your own analysis. See also the comments by Baelor.

I suspect you misunderstand what “unitive” in this context means - it’s not about creating children, nor is it about your physical position during orgasm. It is about bonding with your wife, a bond that is built in numerous ways, including sexual intercourse, throughout your married life. Rape is not unitive (regardless of mechanics). Loveless intercourse is not unitive regardless of mechanics. Sex between a loving married couple is unitive, no matter the mechanics (though it may fail to be procreative - see next para - which is wrong.) Having sex to fulfil the obligation to consummate a marriage (as appears to be your view on the matter) may also fail to be unitive if it is not the free and willing coming together of a loving couple.

You may also misunderstand “procreative” sex - it does not mean “executed for the purpose of having children”. [Such a false interpretation would indeed limit sex to a few times per lifetime.] It means remaining open to that possibility of conception and not engaging in sex in a way that prevents that outcome (eg. contraception, etc.).

What I write here is (to the best of my feeble ability) a statement of Church teaching. Your statements are personal views (and I don’t suggest they are contrived…) and when you attempt to reconcile them with Church teaching), they reveal misunderstandings of those teachings.

I can’t suggest a forum, and don’t imagine this style of venue will serve your interests. In all truth RK, I’m not sure you are open to coming to a new understanding. If you are, I suggest you think through how that could come about, what would be the steps, and how could a new understanding be developed.

 

[Rau]

Ugh, this is getting old. The OP just needs to seek some professional help for scrupulosity and a warped view of sexuality.

Well, yes.

Though I don’t know whether scrupulosity is the central issue here. The scrupulous person is often constantly fearing they have sinned, constantly attending confession, and is wont to interpret rules and the faith on a nano-scale (eg. “while at Mass, a spec of food dislodged from my teeth and I swallowed it. OMG, can I go to Communion”?).

I don’t hear this kind of thing so much from the OP (apologies to the OP for the 3rd party reference…), but rather horribly distorted interpretations of sexual morality to the point of phobia. It is hard to know whether what needs to be addressed is:

• the understanding of Catholic sexuality; or
• the phobia.

Perhaps a priest who is also a Psychologist? It will likely be important that the individual he seeks out is able to provide support on an on-going basis, and I would suggest (for the OP’s benefit) that he not go seeking more opinion from forums such as this, as he will find no comfort, and maybe just more stress.

 

[Kamaduck]

Well, yes.

Though I don’t know whether scrupulosity is the central issue here. The scrupulous person is often constantly fearing they have sinned, constantly attending confession, and is wont to interpret rules and the faith on a nano-scale (eg. “while at Mass, a spec of food dislodged from my teeth and I swallowed it. OMG, can I go to Communion”?).

I don’t hear this kind of thing so much from the OP (apologies to the OP for the 3rd party reference…), but rather horribly distorted interpretations of sexual morality to the point of phobia. It is hard to know whether what needs to be addressed is:

• the understanding of Catholic sexuality; or
• the phobia.

Perhaps a priest who is also a Psychologist? It will likely be important that the individual he seeks out is able to provide support on an on-going basis, and I would suggest (for the OP’s benefit) that he not go seeking more opinion from forums such as this, as he will find no comfort, and maybe just more stress.

Agree that RK doesn’t seem to have scrupulosity. He’s just wrong about a lot of things.

For me (coming out of the fundamentalist/puritanical side of Christianity), it was important to stop thinking of sex as a necessary evil used to create babies, and begin thinking of it as something that’s good and sacred when used to show love for one’s spouse. It’s easier to avoid misusing a good and sacred thing than it is to avoid using an evil thing. Understanding unitive+procreative helped a lot, too.

Not sure how to help him now, though, since he’s futher gone than I ever was.

He definitely needs to talk to a priest about this, though. A psychologist-priest would be awesome, but they can’t be all that common, can they? :ehh:

 

[rkwittem]

If you are, I suggest you think through how that could come about, what would be the steps, and how could a new understanding be developed.

I have no clue as to any of these. I understand (and accept) the theology, but I’m finding it extremely difficult to let go of my fear.

I don’t think developing a new understanding is the problem, I get the theology and its rationale. Rather, it is finding a healthier application of this understanding that proves to be troublesome.

 

[Joy2day]

Quote: "Still, what about practice? Prayer and the study of cultured romance is my answer. Our sexuality is good and natural. Good romance takes the friction, nervousness, seeming anarchy of the, so to speak, sexual arena away: it makes sexuality somewhat playful, innocent and artful. Now, I’m not saying act like a reincarnated Shakespeare or anything here: we live in a different time and different cultural milieu, however, love and romance are intrinsically timeless and perennial: like logic or rhetoric. Of course, as men, we will always have to risk exposing ourselves to getting our hearts broken or being made look silly when we are denied or declined, but we shouldn’t be afraid of this: the trick is doing an examination of conscience and purifying our intentions: if we know that our intentions are/were pure and noble and that we have no sordid base desires in the mix, and that we truly had her interests, welfare or happiness in heart and mind, then we know that we approached any given woman who seemed special to us with pure hearts: i.e., there was nothing wrong in it and nothing to be ashamed of. It was honourable. That’s the trick, because even if she says no you are still in a position to be friends with her. If she turned you down harsh probably she will see how well you took it and later perhaps feel compelled to apologize a bit and at least be friends: because no one believes there are too many good and decent men around or has too many such friends.

And above all, grace.

Hope this helps a bit!

I think you’re right here. Today, we could all learn a lot more about the art of romance. I think all the emphasis on pre- marital sex & casual sex in society has caused a lack of romance & cheapened both men & women in the eyes of one another. I remember those ‘old’ movies of the 50’s - eg. Cary Grant, Catherine Hepburn, Gary Cooper - those old movies seemed to know about romance - & romance was definitely an art form! Maybe in their years of platonic courtship, they practised romance, which made their marriages better in every respect?

 

[Kamaduck]

I think you’re right here. Today, we could all learn a lot more about the art of romance. I think all the emphasis on pre- marital sex & casual sex in society has caused a lack of romance & cheapened both men & women in the eyes of one another. I remember those ‘old’ movies of the 50’s - eg. Cary Grant, Catherine Hepburn, Gary Cooper - those old movies seemed to know about romance - & romance was definitely an art form! Maybe in their years of platonic courtship, they practised romance, which made their marriages better in every respect?

It sounds a little silly, but the thing that helped me accept that sexuality wasn’t a curse was a romance novel. Not a bad one, just a cutesy shojo manga about family and a girl’s awkward relationships. There was more friendship than romance in it, actually. But it featured young men and women respecting each other and getting over their fears of relationships in general. After reading it, I couldn’t honestly believe that liking people was an evil curse. It seemed kind of OK, maybe even like something that could lead to good.

So, RK, are you saying that you understand and agree with what’s being said in this thread, but don’t understand how to implement it or get over your fears?

 

[rkwittem]

It sounds a little silly, but the thing that helped me accept that sexuality wasn’t a curse was a romance novel. Not a bad one, just a cutesy shojo manga about family and a girl’s awkward relationships. There was more friendship than romance in it, actually. But it featured young men and women respecting each other and getting over their fears of relationships in general. After reading it, I couldn’t honestly believe that liking people was an evil curse. It seemed kind of OK, maybe even like something that could lead to good.

So, RK, are you saying that you understand and agree with what’s being said in this thread, but don’t understand how to implement it or get over your fears?

I’ll put it this way- I know my fears are off-base and way too powerful (and possibly wrong), and I hate them. And yes, I don’t understand how to get from here to where everyone else seemingly is without feeling sick. Getting over it, feels nigh impossible.

 

[Baelor]

Talk to a priest.

 

[Debora123]

I’ll put it this way- I know my fears are off-base and way too powerful (and possibly wrong), and I hate them. And yes, I don’t understand how to get from here to where everyone else seemingly is without feeling sick. Getting over it, feels nigh impossible.

…That’s why you need to seek professional help.

 

[JDGaney]

It becomes wrong when it is purely lust, and we have no intention of treating the other person with respect, then it is wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

…That’s why you need to seek professional help.

**Ugh, this is getting old. The OP just needs to seek some professional help for scrupulosity and a warped view of sexuality. **

Would you agree that if you believe that someone needs professional help for a problem then it would be considerate to avoid using comments like

“Ugh”…“warped”…

If this is your concern would it not be best to state something like…

The OP appears to be troubled. I see that this causes me frustration and see that it causes him frustration. Perhaps professional help would be in order.

What exactly you believe professional help would be for, I do not know.

The OP has not responded to lecturing. The OP has not responded to a simple request to answer a few questions.

I am not sure how sincere the OP is in considering any change of thinking based on the responses I see.

 

[Rau]

… I understand (and accept) the theology, but I’m finding it extremely difficult to let go of my fear.

RK, if you now truly understand** and accept **the Church teachings presented by us in this thread, then that is a great step forward, and not what I expected to hear from you!

Do you feel you have crossed a (first) bridge? Can you now truly say* “I have a new understanding of key aspects of sexual morality (including the proper role of sex in marriage), quite different from what I previously understood, and I accept this new understanding”* ? If so, that’s a great achievement - particularly given the strength of convictions you expressed only a few days ago… If you *have *crossed this bridge, you may want to just contemplate how significant this is, and what a positive difference to your life it *could *make.

But, you’ve also identified there is a second bridge ahead, which is “letting go of my fear” (by which I understand you are referring to the fear of falling into a sexual sin…). Crossing the ‘first bridge’ above is an essential prerequisite to dealing with this one, because it equips you with the proper benchmark to distinguish right from wrong. You didn’t have that before, and now (I hope) you do. And the good news is that the scope of what is right has expanded considerably!

I think this (ie. your fear…) is the issue that you ought to seek to discuss with a Priest. Hopefully a priest can (far better than I anyway) remind you of why Jesus was sent by the Father, and the “saving” consequences of His sacrifice. He can speak to you about human frailties, God’s infinite love and forgiveness and the very achievable levels of sincerity and good will you need to bring to earn God’s favour.

 

[Debora123]

Would you agree that if you believe that someone needs professional help for a problem then it would be considerate to avoid using comments like

“Ugh”…“warped”…

If this is your concern would it not be best to state something like…

The OP appears to be troubled. I see that this causes me frustration and see that it causes him frustration. Perhaps professional help would be in order.

What exactly you believe professional help would be for, I do not know.

The OP has not responded to lecturing. The OP has not responded to a simple request to answer a few questions.

I am not sure how sincere the OP is in considering any change of thinking based on the responses I see.

I feel like babying him isn’t helping either.

Just a hunch.

Some people just need to get off CAF and seek counsel. It’s not helping them to be here.

 

[Protector]

Catholic80;10794260] This is an interesting question.

For example, **is thinking a man/woman is hansom/pretty a sin? Is thinking “I would like to date him/her” a sin? Also, is it a sin to think that someone’s spouse is attractive? **

**Yes to all of the above, if the following applies:- **

---

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” ***Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

Protector.